LexM/S KABARI PVT. LTD. versus SHIVNATH SHROFF AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
( !"' MIS KABARI PVT. LTD. v. SHIVNATH SHROFF AND ORS. DECEMBER 1, 1995 [G.N. RAY AND DR. A.S. ANA'ND, JJ.] Constitution of India-Article 136-I...aches and negligence in pursuing remedy in suit for specific peiformance--Dilatory tactics adopted in proceed- ings before High Court-Suit dismissed by High Court for gross negligence on A B part of plaintiffs-Review application filed in High Court while SLP pending C disposal in Supreme Cowt without stating that SLP had been filed-Review application allowed by High Court-Whether, as contended, inaction of solicitors responsible for /aches and negligence-Wl!ether review applications deserved to have been di<missed-Held, plaintiffs failed and neglected to take proper steps in caniage of proceedings of suit-On facts, held, plaintiffs were D not diligent in pursuing proceedings-Held further, plaintiffs being admittedly aware of /aches and negligence, could have changed solicitors-Review ap- plication based on false and fabricated premises deserved to be dis- missed-Judicial process-Urban Land Ceiling Act. Civil Procedure Code 1908-0rder 47 Rule !-"From which an appeal E is allowed''-Meaning of-Whether includes special leave petition-Question left open-Words and Phrases-Interpretation of statutes-Liberal construc- tion. An agreement for sale of property between plaintiffs-respondents and the defendant-vendors was entered into in 1978, and certain sums were F paid towards the sale price. The plaintiffs respondents were already in possession of the said property. The application of the vendors before the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act for permission for sale in favour of the plaintiffs having been refused, the vendors transferred the premises to the appella1_1ts' after obtaining the relevant permission. The G plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for specific performance, and an interim order was passed on an application for interim injnnction in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs-respondents were represented by a firm of solicitors, M/s. T. Banerjee & Co. On 8 March 1982, the plaintiffs made an application for amendment H 77 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A of the plaint to implead the appellants and also to effect other amendments in the body and prayer of the plaint, which was allowed on 9July1982. On 14 July 1982, fresh writ of summons was directed to be issued for service on the added respondent, i.e., the appellant. Between July 1982 and March 1992, though the matter came up on several occasions, the amendments to B the suit were not carried out. The application for extension of time to carry out the amendments wa~ dismissed on 13 March 1992. On 14 July 1992, a prayer on behalf of the plaintiffs for a direction that the suit should go out of the special list was opposed by the defendants, including the appellant, and the suit was dismissed. Appeals were filed from both orders dated 13 March 1992 and 14 July 1992. On 16 February 1993, a Division Bench of C the High Court dismissed the appeals by a common judgment. At this stage, plaintiffs changed their solicitors and Mis. L.P. Aggar· \Vala & Co. was engaged. The plaintiffs filed two SLPs before this Court. While these petitions D were pending, the plaintiffs filed review petitions before the High Court. E The review applications did not mention the filing of the SLPs before this Court. After the review petitions were allowed by the High Court on 18 March 1994, the SLPs were allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn on the prayer of' the plaintiffs-respondents. A petition for eviction of' the plaintiffs-respondents was pending in the High Court. Before this Court it was contended for the appellants that the plaintiffs, in an attempt to delay the hearing of the suit and in adopting F dilatory tactics, had deliberately failed and neglected to take steps effecting amendment of' the plaint; that, while filing the review petitions, the plain- tiffs-respondents had not informed that High Court that SLPs were pend- ing in this Court, and that pendency of parallel proceedings for the same relief' should not be encouraged; that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC should accord- G ingly be construed to include SLPs; that there was no basis for the plea that the respondents solicitors had let them down; that the respondents had changed their solicitors only after the appeals had been dismissed; that the appellants had suffered serious prrjudice on accoun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.