EAST BENGAL STEAM SERVICES LTD Vs. EAST BENGAL STEAM SERVICE AND ENGG WORKS CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the order by the learned Single Judge of this Court is in challenge. By that order, the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent East Bengal River Steam Services & Engineering Works Workers' Co-operative Industrial Society. By that application, the Society had sought dismissal of Suit No. 1 of 1983 filed by the present appellant against the respondent. In their application it was pointed out by the respondent that this suit was instituted in the year 1983 and yet the plaintiff- appellant herein did not serve the defendant No. 1 with the summons for the instant suit or any copy of the plaint. The learned Judge accepted this application and has dismissed the suit necessitating the present appeal.

(2.) Following factual background would help in understanding the controversy. A civil suit came to be filed by the defendant No. 4 United Bank of India (hereinafter called 'the Bank') praying therein for a decree of Rs. 1,13,45,161.75 and other reliefs as against the present appellant. This was a Suit No. 133 of 1977. In this suit, by an order dated 1.12.1977, this Court appointed Joint Receivers over hypothecated goods of the plaintiff. On 25.08.1980, the present respondent filed an application in the said suit for obtaining lease of the factory and other assets of the plainiff company. On November 11,1980, that application was allowed. That order came to be modified by a subsequent order dated 24th November, 1980. An appeal was preferred against the two orders before the Division Bench. However, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal. The respondent herein, therefore, deposited a sum of Rs. 23,71,247/- with the Joint Receivers as a consideration for purchase of the concerned assets. The amount was accepted by the Receivers and the money was kept in the fixed deposit account of the Receivers in the High Court Branch of the defendant No. 4 Bank. A special petition was also filed for leave to appeal against this order dated 24.7.1981. However, the Supreme Court confirmed the said order and dismissed the SLP. Thereafter, on September 22, 1981, the Division Bench passed an order for completing the sale process and for delivery of possession of the concerned property. Therefore, another SLP was filed against the order of the Division Bench dated 22.09.1981. The original defendant No. 4 Bank also filed SLP against these orders. By orders dated 30.10.1981 and 9.11.1981, the Supreme Court was pleased to pass interim orders directing the Joint Receivers to hand over the possession of the factory to the present respondent to run the same under the overall supervision of the Joint Receivers. The Joint Receivers accordingly handed over the possession of the factory to the respondent, first respondent herein. The Supreme Court also passed the orders dated 18.10.1982 and 22.10.1982 in the SLP field by the appellant plaintiff company and the defendant No. 4 Bank. Thereafter, the defendant No. 4 Bank moved an application before the Court for an order directing the Joint Receivers to call a meeting of the parties. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 13th December, 1982. Again an appeal was preferred from the order dated 13th December, 1982 which appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 17.12.1982. This is how the present respondent became entitled to the conveyance of the concerned assets and properties.

(3.) It is then that Suit No. 1 of 1983 came to be instituted by the appellant plaintiff who was the defendant in the original suit field by the Bank. In that suit, the orders dated 11th November, 1980, 24th November, 1980, 22nd September, 1981 and 23rd September, 1981 and the orders dated 18th October, 1981, 18th October, 1982 and 22nd October, 1982 and all subsequent orders made in Suit No. 133 of 1977 were challenged and a declaration was sought that all these orders were null and void. Thereafter, the suit was completely forgotten and even a writ of summons was not served on the respondent herein. The aforementioned application therefore, came to be filed for dismissal of the suit in the year 2003. In this Suit No. 1 of 1983, the plaintiff appellant prayed for an interlocutory order restraining the Joint Receivers from registering the concerned deed in favour of the repondent herein and such order was passed on 11.1.1983.