KISHAN GOPAL Vs. RAMNARAYAN BHATTAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are directed against the orders of the City Civil Court, Madras, which on the face of them appear to be extremely unusual, having regard to the facts of the case and the nature of the decree in question. Admittedly the first defendant who is the first respondent in C.R.P.1605 of 1984 and the sole respondent in C.R.P.1606 of 1984 was not granted leave to defend a summary suit which was filed by the plaintiff in this court. His request for unconditional leave was rejected by the Master, by the learned single Judge and by a Division Bench of this Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the first defendant. On 11-9-1968, the Supreme Court made an order as follows :-

(2.) The suit proceeded to trial and a decree was passed on 6-2-1984 as follows -

(3.) An application I. A.4529 of 1984, also came to be made by the first defendant in which he stated that an adjustment of Rs.75000 which was made under an agreement between the first defendant on the one side and defendants 2 to 7 and 9 on the other was binding on the plaintiff and therefore it was for defendants 2 to 7 and 9, to pay the amount to the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the decretal amount has to be paid by defendants 2 to 7 and 9 to the plaintiff and not by the first defendant. The first defendant contended that it was just and equitable that the plaintiff should proceed against defendants 2 to 7 and 9. On these grounds, the first defendant sought the cancellation of the Bank guarantee executed by him in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit. Both these applications were disposed of by the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The learned Additional Judge took the view that while disposing of the suit, the court, on assessment of the evidence, had come to the conclusion that by reason of the agreement Ex. A 1, the defendants 2 to 7 and 9 were liable to pay the amount covered by the decree to the plaintiff and therefore it was but fair and appropriate that the plaintiff should execute the decree at the first instance against defendants 2 to 7 and 9. The trial Court noticed that it was not the case of the plaintiff that it was impossible to realise the amount from defendants 2 to 7 and 9 or that they were not possessed of any means to satisfy the decree. The trial Court then observed-