RAMKRISHNA SHRIDHAR CHOUBE Vs. COURT RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this notice of motion, the applicants have sought following reliefs :

(2.) The contesting parties before the Court are plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos. 13 and 14. Defendant Nos. 13 and 14 have filed affidavit in reply opposing the notice of motion.

(3.) In order to appreciate the point involved in this motion, it would be necessary to state relevant facts. Original Plaintiff No. 1 and original defendant No. 12 Premnath were brothers. This Premnath had instituted two suits in the Court at Thane, being Suit No. 446 of 1987 and Suit No. 526 of 1987 against the original plaintiff No. 1 and others. These two cases related to the rights of Premnath in certain properties, more particularly set out in the said suits, out of which one property is the subject-matter of the present suit, which property is described in the plaint. Certain interim orders were passed in Suit No. 446 of 1987 and Appeal from Order came to be filed by Premnath in this Court being Appeal from Order No. 676 of 1992, as Premnath was aggrieved by the said interim orders. In the said Appeal from Order No. 676 of 1992 the consent terms were arrived at. Clause 7 of the said consent terms dealt with the suit property concerned in this suit i.e. Suit No. 1188 of 1984. The reading of the said clause would go to show that Premnath and original plaintiff No. 1 and others agreed that subject to decision in this Suit No. 1188 of 1984, properties at serial Nos. 9 and 10 mentioned in Exhibit A to the consent terms will be joint properties of Premnath and original plaintiff No. 1 and others who were styled as respondents in the said Appeal from Order No. 676 of 1992.