NARAYAN CHANDRA GARAI Vs. MATRI BHANDAR PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by (1) Sm. Annapurna De, inter alia, to be added as a party defendant in suit and for an order vacating and/or setting aside an order of injunction dated the 9th September, 1969.

(2.) The case made out by the petitioner is, as would appear from the affidavit of one Sudhangshu Kumar Seal affirmed on the 14th September, 1973 in support of the petition, that she is a widow and housewife residing at Calcutta. On 17th May, 1969 she entered into an agreement with one Sanatan Kumar Daw, the defendant No. 2 in this suit to purchase the property of the defendant No. 2, a two storied building at Bethuadahari, Nadia for a price of Rs. 18,000/-. She paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by way of earnest money. The transaction was to be completed within six months from the date. The petitioner was to advance further sums to the vendor from time to time if the latter would be in need of the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner up to the 1st of August, 1967 advanced Rs. 13,000/- by various instalments. It is also stated that the defendant No. 2 deposited title deeds of the property at Calcutta and by two letters dated 21-2-1976 B. S. and 17-4-1976 B. S. corresponding to 4th of June and 2nd of August, 1969 respectively, mortgaged the properties to the petitioner. The defendant No. 2 failed and neglected to convey the property to the petitioner, she claims that she is entitled to a charge on the said property. On the 23rd June, 1973 for the first time she came to know from the said defendant No. 2 that the Hon'ble Court by an Order dated the 9th September, 1969 restrained the defendant from dealing with the said property till the disposal of the present suit. Thereafter on enquiry she came to know about the present suit and the aforesaid order dated 9th September, 1969. The case of the petitioner is that she is a mortgagee or a holder of the charge on the property and as such she is an interested party in these proceedings. She claims to be a proper and a necessary party as the transaction viz., the purchase of the property cannot be completed. Her interest is in jeopardy; unless the said order of injunction dated the 9th September, 1969 is vacated she will suffer irreparable loss. She further adds that she "could rot take any action expeditiously" as she is A Pardanashin lady and also because she was ill. By an affidavit affirmed on the 5th of November 1973 the defendant No. 2 Sanatan Kumar Daw supports the claim of the petitioner and states that he is ready and willing to convey the property on being paid the balance of the consideration money if this Court vacates the said order of injunction. He states that on account of illness of his father the defendant No. 2 tried to effect a settlement of the suit, the agreement for sale is also annexed to the said affidavit.

(3.) By an affidavit affirmed on the 21st of November, 1973 one Narayan Chandra Garai, a partner of the plaintiff firm opposes the said petition. It is stated that Sudhangshu Kumar Seal, the constituted attorney of the petitioner Annapurna De, is a friend of the defendant No. 2 and the petitioner is her sister-in-law. It is stated further that the defendants are in greatly involved circumstances. The defendant No. 2 has no other asset except the said two storied building. The defendants have various other creditors. The defendant No. 2 was about to dispose of the said property with the mala fide intent to defraud the plaintiff and defeat its claim in suit. It is stated, however, that on 8-8-1969 the deponent was informed by a land broker that the defendant No. 2 was interested in disposing of the said property at Krishnagar. The said Sudhangshu Kumar Seal and the defendant No. 2 were acting in collusion and conspiracy with one another. The schedules of the alleged agreement for sale and alleged part payment are stated to be false and/or at any rate highly suspicious. The fact that Sudhangshu Kumar Seal was a friend of the defendant No. 2, that the petitioner had no ostensible source of income and the nature of the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement for sale are mentioned as grounds for the said suspicion. It is stated that the subject matter of the suit is the recovery of the price for some goods sold and delivered to the defendants. It is denied that the application is made bona fide. The application is stated to be mis-conceived. A copy of the plaint is annexed for perusal of the Court.