RAMESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL Vs. MAHESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kejriwal family had principally two business, Foundry and Machine business. The disputes and differences arose between the members that were resolved through a family settlement recorded in writing through a document dated September 29, 2002 appearing at page 23 of the paper book (APO 353 of 2011). As per the agreement, Ramesh was to look after the family business together with all liabilities attached to the same whereas Mahesh would run the other business taking the liabilities attached thereto. Mahesh filed a suit in this Court in 2009 after about seven years inter alia making a grievance, his other brother Ramesh did not discharge his liability attached to the Foundry business. As a result, he suffered immense prejudice as ING Vysya Bank, the secured creditor would be enforcing the personal guarantee given by Mahesh. There were other two parties in the settlement being two brothers of the former generation. Father was residing with Mahesh whereas uncle was with Ramesh. Mahesh would contend, his personal shares and shares of Sabitri Devi in various companies as well as securities in their name that were pledged with the bank were sold in repayment of the dues of the bank. He made a money claim of Rs. 29.9 crores on that account.

(2.) Ramesh filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main plunk of the argument was, the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and even if it was so, the laws of limitation would bar the claim. Hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Similar suits were filed by the other members of the branch of Mahesh. Altogether three suits were filed being C.S. No.313 of 2009 by Mahesh, C.S. No.312 by Alka and C.S. No.222/09 by Murari Mohan, all belonged to one group led by Mahesh. Mahesh filed an application for amendment that would clarify the cause of action, that would give rise to the filing of the suit including an explanation as to why the suit would not be barred by the law of limitation. The learned single Judge dismissed the application for dismissal of the suit and allowed the application for amendment. Hence, the above four appeals that were heard and are being disposed of by the foregoing judgment and order.