RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL Vs. LITHOFERRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.

(2.) This Writ Petition is filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 against Order dated 21.7.2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 96/2003/C by which learned Civil Judge, has allowed transposition of defendant no.5(g), 5(h) and 6 as plaintiffs in place of Court receiver appointed to manage the affairs of the firm M/s Lithoferro. Parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title.

(3.) As per the consent decree, the parties agreed that they had settled their differences in respect of said firm M/s Lithoferro; they also agreed that there was no room to have the partnership dissolved; they agreed that from the side of the original plaintiff Mr. Meghashyam K. Nevgi, plaintiff no. 3 Vaishali M. Nevgi and plaintiff no. 7 Mr. Rajiv M. Nevgi shall continue to be partners of the said firm and from the side of original defendant Mr. Vinayak D. Sawkar his son Kaustubh, defendant no.1(ii) would continue to be a partner; they further agreed that the said partnership was continued from 14.2.1992 with the said plaintiff nos. 3, 7 and defendant no.1(ii) as partners and to that extent preliminary decree would be modified; they also agreed that the preliminary decree dated 16.12.2000 to the extent it dissolved the firm M/s Lithoferro would be ineffective and further agreed that original firm which was reconstituted by deed dated 23.1.1989 still subsisted and was not dissolved; they further agreed that the transactions done by the late Shri Vinayak Sawkar from 25.7.1991 and after the death of Meghashyam K. Nevgi and which were listed alongwith the said consent terms, would not be binding on the plaintiffs; they agreed that the suit filed by the Court receiver i.e. Special Civil Suit no. 96/2003/C for the recovery of Rs.47,38,150.79 (Rupees forty seven lakhs thirty eight thousand one hundred fifty and seventy nine paise only) against the present petitioners, upon the recovery of the amount would be shared half by plaintiff nos. 3 and 7 and half by defendant no. 1(ii) but the suit would be continued by the parties and not by the Court receiver and the said suit namely SCS no.203/1991/B being disposed of, the Court receiver would be discharged. This was specifically stated in clause (f) at page 9 of the consent terms.