DURGA DAS Vs. SOLACE AND ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rejection of an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application. The learned Court below, by an order dated 14th March, 2011, rejected the said application filed by the plaintiff on the ground that from the plaint it does not suggest that Uco Bank, Dum Dum Branch is a necessary party or a proper party. Accordingly, the learned Judge did not find any cogent ground to allow such prayer "at this stage".

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants praying, inter alia, for declaration and injunction. The prayer for permanent injunction is limited to defendant Nos. 7 and 8. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 by practising fraud upon the plaintiffs sold away Schedule B Property to the defendant No. 7. It is further alleged that the Schedule B Property was mortgaged in favour of the defendant No. 8 i.e., Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. The plaintiffs were surprised to find on 21st May, 2007, that some unknown persons visited the said property with a view to take possession thereof due to failure of the defendant No. 7 to pay off the mortgage debts to the defendant No. 8 in whose favour the defendant No. 7 claimed to have created mortgage for availing certain credit facilities.

(3.) The said suit was filed sometimes in November, 2007.