MAZID BEG Vs. SUBHASHINI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is common question involved in these two civil revisions, therefore, both are being decided by this common order.

(2.) These civil revisions have been preferred by one of the plaintiffs/applicant challenging the identical orders dtd. 30/06/2021 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No.527-A/2008 and 460-A/2008, whereby plaintiffs' applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC have been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits that originally the suit was filed by plaintiff- Mazid Beg, in which written statement(s) was/were filed by the defendants and one of the defendants namely Omwati Goyal filed counter-claim also. During pendency of suit, plaintiff- Mazid Beg died, therefore, his legal representatives were substituted and under order of High Court, applicant- Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd. was also impleaded as one of the plaintiffs in the plaint. Prior to substitution of Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd., the defendant(s) filed his/their written statement(s) and defendant Omwati Goyal filed separate written statement as well as counter-claim and nobody else has filed the counter-claim.