ASHOK JAIN Vs. MAHENDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is an admitted position that the respondent No.3 as arrayed in the amended cause title is not a necessary party in this matter. Thus, while allowing the application moved by the contesting respondents (IA No.7889/2012), the name of respondent No.3 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties. A note to that effect be put against her name. Service is complete and the contesting parties are represented by their respective counsel.

(2.) THOUGH this appeal stands admitted for final hearing but for the reasons and circumstances noticed hereafter, we have heard the learned counsel finally at this stage itself.

(3.) THOUGH we had our reservations on the objections as suggested on behalf of the appellants regarding the position of Smt. Kavita Jain, particularly looking to the extensive but specific terms and conditions of the order as passed by the learned Single Judge but it does not appear necessary to make any other comment in the matter for the reason that whatever had been the objections or apprehensions, the same are, obviously, taken care of with the specific affidavit of Smt. Kavita Jain, as referred hereinabove. The learned counsel Mr. Chopra assures that the original affidavit shall be filed before the learned Single Judge. So far as the other part of the matter regarding any amendment of the contents of the order or any alteration in the proposed draft of the deed are concerned, in our opinion, all such aspects should be submitted before the learned Single Judge for consideration.