G M BREWERIES LTD Vs. SHREENATH DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the two chamber summonses. The chamber summons No.81 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking leave under order XXI Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure to execute Decree against the Respondent Jyotsna Nitin Mehta, a partner of M/s. Shreenath Developers, Defendant No.1 in Suit No.1791 of 2002 in which Common Consent Decree has been passed and for further relief of permitting amendment of the execution application and warrant of attachment. In view of the technical objection raised on behalf of the respondent, the plaintiffs have filed another chamber summons being Chamber Summons No.1122 of 2005 in the execution application arising out of Summary Suit No.1791 of 2002. By consent of the parties, the said chamber summons is taken on board and heard alongwith Chamber Summons No.81 of 2005. Counsel for the respondent states that the pleadings filed by the respondent in the present chamber summons No.81 of 2005 be treated as having been filed in Chamber Summons No.1122 of 2005. That request is accepted.

(2.) Accordingly, both the chamber summonses are heard and are being disposed of together. Broad facts for deciding point in issue that arises for consideration in both the chamber summonses are that, in all five suits are filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants named in the respective suits. Husband of respondent has been named as defendant in three of these suits. It is common ground that all the defendants are sister concerns. In the five Summary Suits filed by the plaintiffs, Common Consent Terms were drawn by the parties and parties agreed for disposal of all the suits on the basis of said common consent terms. The consent terms were handed over to Court and were accepted and all the five suits came to be disposed of on 11th December, 2003. Under the said Consent Terms, defendants in all the five suits "jointly and severally" agreed to pay sum of Rs.4,03,00,000/- to fully satisfy the decree. As the payment was not made as per the terms agreed between the parties referred to in the Consent Terms, the plaintiffs filed execution application. In the execution application, the plaintiffs have now taken out the present application for leave to proceed against the respondent. It is now learnt that respondent is one of the partner of Shreenath Developers, registered partnership firm named as defendant in summary suit No.1791 of 2002. Accordingly, the plaintiffs contend that plaintiffs are entitled to proceed against the respondent, who is jointly and severally liable in terms of the Consent Terms signed by the defendants including the said Shreenath Developers Partnership firm.

(3.) The other relevant fact that requires to be noted is that on the date when the said transaction in respect of Suit No.1791 of 2002 was entered into, the respondent was partner of Shreenath Developers. It is also not in dispute that when the demand notice was issued by the plaintiffs, sometime in 1996-97, the respondent was partner in the said firm.