KUMKUM MITTAL AND ANOTHER Vs. ROBIN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two suits viz. Extra-ordinary Suit No. 1 of 1985 Kumkum Mittal Vs. Robin Paul , and Suit No. 240 of 1990. M's. Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick, have been assigned to this Bench and those two suits are being heard analogously and/or jointly.

(2.) An application for addition of party has since been filed for adding Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in E.O. Suit No. 1 of 1985 and, if necessary, to consider the plaint in Suit No. 240 of 1990 as a Written State of the added party.

(3.) There is a chequered background as to the trial of both these suits. There are various prayers in E.O. Suit No. 1 of 1985 and the suit s contested by the defendant No. 1 Robin Paul and the Defendant No. 6, New Red Bank Tea Co. Pvt Ltd. Matters went to the Honourable Supreme Court, and the decree for specific performance of contract granted by the Court Suit No. 240 of 1990 brought at the instance of M/s Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. could not be sustained. It was found by the Honourable Supreme Court that in view of the pendency of the earlier Suit No. 8 of 1984 which has since been renumbered as E.O. of 1985, being transferred to this Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, the decree for specific performance cannot be granted. The Supreme Court found further that in fairness both the suits ought to have been tried together. The suit for specific performance of contract could not rave been decreed by consent without determining the title and factum of possession of the suit property. The title and possession could not have been decided without impleading the necessary parties. Consequently the decree for specific performance of contract in Suit No. 240 of 1990 has been set aside and the High Court has been asked to try Suit No. 8 of 1984 renumbered as E.O. 1 of 1985 and Suit No. 240 of 1990 together. Pursuant to such directors this Court has already necessary passed orders for hearing of both the suits together for pint and or for analogous hearing. The; New Red Bank Tea Co. Ltd. has, however, been added as a party defendant in Suit No. 240 of 1990.