Het Ram Chauhan vs Kapila Kumar

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The report of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Panchkula has been received in terms of the previous order. The status of Civil Suit No. 284 of 2009 is reported decided and an appeal is pending hearing on July 22, 2014.

Ms. Payel Mehta has produced attested copies of plaints in Civil Suit No. 284 of 2009 where the cause title is Sarabjit Kumar vs. Karanveer Verma and others. The other is Civil Suit No. 308 of 2011 titled Kapila Kumar wife of Sh. Sarabjit Kumar vs. Hiteshwari Paper Moulding Private Limited and others. This suit was instituted on August 19, 2011 by the wife after the dismissal of the suit filed by the husband from which the said appeal is pending.

The present petition arises out of the suit filed by Kapila Kumar (wife of Sarabjit Kumar).

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the order dated May 08, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula by which the suit qua defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 has been dismissed. Defendant Nos. 4, 6 to 8 are ex parte. The only contesting defendant left is defendant No. 10 Tirlok Singh who is stated to be no longer a shareholder of the respondent No. 1 company and has no subsisting interest left in the lis. Ms. Mehta refers to the earlier interim order dated August 29, 2011 by which the trial Court restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property which includes the present petitioner who is arrayed as defendant No. 5. The order dismissing the suit inter alia qua the petitioner and all but one of defendants i.e. defendant No. 10 Tirlok Singh has attained finality. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the suit qua the petitioner, the temporary injunction continues to operate detrimental to the interest of the petitioner on account of which he is facing undue hardship.

In the circumstances, the sole contention raised and pressed in the present petition is for an expeditious disposal of the appeal, the pendency of which, is causing grave concern amidst confusion arising out of both the suits, one pending the other in appeal, the subject matter of both of which is an industrial plot in Barwala purchased by the defendant company at a public auction conducted by the Haryana Financial Corporation to satisfy its debts against a third party. It is stated that the shareholding pattern of the company has changed in the meanwhile where fresh rights are created and old ones extinguished. This is, however, for the courts below to see and are not presently examined in this revision in view of the limited relief sought.

After addressing arguments and explaining the factual ground level position, Ms. Mehta submits that the learned trial Court may be directed to re-examine its own order dated August 29, 2011 and consider whether the restraint order against the petitioner granted on August 29, 2011 deserves to be continued. In Kapila Kumar''s case the dispute presently remains confined to the plaintiff and defendant No. 10 alone and therefore the pendency of the suit should not injure or affect the defendants adversely qua whom the suit has been dismissed by the learned trial judge. It may be kept in mind that the civil suit filed by the husband-Sarabjit Kumar had been dismissed and is pending in appeal. During the pendency of the earlier suit, the present suit was filed by Kapila Kumar for more or less the same relief and more importantly through the same Power of Attorney Naseeb Singh without mentioning in the plaint the previous suit instituted by Sarabjit Kumar through the same power of attorney holder Naseeb Singh. It is pointed out that both Sarabjit Kumar and Kapila Kumar are NRIs. In the midst of this the petitioner is aggrieved with the lower courts not taking an overview of the case or appreciating the totality of circumstances in order to understand where the rub lies as far as the petitioner in concerned unable to deal with the property on behalf of the defendant No 1, a private limited company of which he is a Director.

There is some merit in the contention of the petitioner for an expeditious disposal of the stay matter and the appeal. Petitioner''s right cannot be kept postponed beyond reasonable time. Therefore, keeping in view the above position it is ordered that the parties be heard and the matter re-examined threadbare by the learned trial Court and a fresh order be passed on whether an interim order restraining the petitioner from alienating the suit property deserves to continue or not. The status of defendant No. 10 Tirlok Singh be examined vis-a-vis the petitioner and Kapila Kumar and opined on. This exercise be completed within one month from the date the certified copy of the order is placed before the Court. Parties to appear on the date fixed i.e. July 22, 2014. In case, parties do not appear personally or through counsel that should not be reason for the trial Court to adjourn the matter.

The petition stands disposed of with the above directions.