O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) Shorn of all superfluities, the woodcut profile of the facts, leading to the present revision applications, which involve common questions of law and facts, and, they are, therefore, proposed to be decided together are as follows :
(2.) The Patiala Flour Mills Company Ltd.. decree holder opposite party No. 1 filed Suit No. 83 of 1973 for the relief of specific performance of contract dated 18 April, 1966 by directing that the defendant-judgment debtor No. 1 U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (for short 'UPSIDC'), which has come in revision before this Court, to transfer in favour of the plaintiff decree holder 80,000 equity shares of M/s. Modlpon Ltd. defendant judgment debtor No. 2 and to register the plaintiff decree holder as shareholder to the extent of the aforesaid shares in place of UPSIDC Ltd., and pay to the plaintiff decree holder all the dividends accruing on the aforesaid shares as also to allot the relevant bonus shares. Besides the aforesaid suit. two other Suit Nos. 278 of 1974 and 203 of 1975 were also instituted by the decree holder opposite party No. 1 for the same relief of specific performance in respect of 80,000 and 28,000 equity shares respectively. In this manner. three suits came to be filed for specific performance of the contract for transfer of 1,88.000 original shares, bonus shares and dividends accruing thereon. All the three suits were dismissed by the trial court, i.e., IIIrd Additional District Judge. Kanpur on 31.7.1981. The plaintiff opposite party No. 1 filed three appeal Nos. 492 of 1991. 489 of 1991 and 490 of 1991 before this Court. Alt these three appeals were allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were set aside. The UPSIDC Judgment debtor revisionist preferred special leave petitions before the Supreme Court which were dismissed on 18.7.1994. A review application was also moved by UPSIDC before Supreme Court, which was faced with an order of rejection. Subsequently, the UPSIDC again preferred a revision application before this Court. It met with no better luck and the review application was dismissed by a detailed order of this Court dated 2.2.1996. In this manner, the decree passed by this Court in the three appeals, mentioned above, against the UPSIDC judgment debtor No. 1 and M/s. Modipon Ltd.. judgment debtor opposite party No. 2 became final. The decrees have been put to execution and now the trial court is seized of the matter on execution side.
(3.) During the pendency of the execution applications, the judgment debtor No. 1 UPSIDC filed objections under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure which are pending disposal.;