SANJAY KUMAR BAJORIA Vs. LATA DEVI BAJORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows:- All the above mentioned applications have been taken out by respective parties as stated specifically hereinafter for following common reliefs:-

(2.) This application has been taken out by Calcutta Infrastructure Infotech Projects Limited the defendant No. 10 for the above relief on the ground that from perusal of the plaint and relief claimed therein would show that the plaintiff is seeking a decision on right title of immovable property, and control and possession thereof. The plaintiff had at no point of time held any share in the applicant company and the particulars of the shareholders would appear from a schedule which is annexed to the petition being Annexure 'C. As on 11th November, 2004 Arun Kumar Bajoria, since deceased (who has been described hereinafter in short AKB) had no interest in the applicant company nor AKB was a Director at that point of time. Therefore, AKB creating any interest in respect of the Behala property could not and did not arise. The property at Behala admittedly situates outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The documents relied on by the plaintiff are clearly inadmissible in evidence and no right in respect of the said immovable property could be claimed on the basis of that document as the said document is unregistered also. No specific performance of alleged agreement could be granted inasmuch as the dispute relate to immovable property that situates outside the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court. The said suit is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and is filed in gross abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as the plaintiff had full knowledge of the true facts regarding ownership and possession of the said property at the time of institution of the instant suit. The suit is filed intending to cause unnecessary hardship to the applicant.

(3.) This application has been taken out by the defendant Nos. 13, 16 and 17 namely Gold Mohar Implex Private Limited, Paras Trexim Private Limited and Subodh Credit and Finvest Private Limited. The grounds stated in this application for the relief as aforesaid are identical as those stated in the immediately preceding two applications as such I do not feel the same should be repeated here.