- (1.) This is to consider an application filed by the plaintiff for passing a decree upon admission against the defendant for eviction from the suit property described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint along with other incidental reliefs.
(2.) The case of the petitioner Company in brief is that a Company known as Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. (Respondent No.1) filed an application being G.A. No. 4040 of 2001 in the instant suit praying inter alia for an order allowing them to be added as defendant in the instant suit which was allowed by the order of the Court dated January 17, 2002. After having been added as a defendant the Respondent No. 1 filed an application being G.A. No.824 of 2002 praying inter alia for dismissal of the instant suit but the same was dismissed by an order dated 27.06.2002. Neither the original defendant nor the added defendant has filed any written statement. In those applications being G.A. No.4040 of 2001 and G.A. No.824 of 2002 the Respondent No. 1 alleged that there has been only a mere change in the name of the defendant from ANZ Grindlays Bank to Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. Thereafter on August 26, 2002 the Respondent No. 1 filed another application being T. No. 474 of 2002 and in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said application it was inter alia stated that the Respondent No. 1 had applied to the Reserve Bank of India under section 44(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for approval of the scheme of amalgamation with Standard Chartered Bank. The Reserve Bank of India by its order dated 17th August, 2002 had sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation of the Indian Branches of the respondent No. 1 with the Indian Branches of Standard Chartered Bank (Respondent No. 2) with effect from 31st August, 2002. Thereafter on September 2, 2002 the Respondent No. 2 had filed two applications being G.A. No. 3580 of 2002 and G.A. No. 3501 of 2002 praying for various reliefs. By an order dated September 12, 2002 the Court was pleased to dispose of those two applications by allowing the Respondent No.2 to be added as a party/defendant to the instant suit. It is further stated that from the averment made in paragraph 9 of the petition being T. No.474 of 2002 the added defendant admitted that the defendant had transferred and assigned the suit property to a third party without any consent of the petitioner/plaintiff in writing in favour of the respondent No.2 and in this background the present application has been filed.
(3.) The respondent No. 2 has contested the application by filing an affidavit-in-opposition in which all the material allegations are denied and it is inter alia stated that the Respondent No.2 as defendant could not file the written statement due to unavoidable predicament, as the learned Advocate continued to stay away from their professional work in Court. It is also stated that in spite of that an advance copy of the said written statement had duly been served upon the learned advocate for the petitioner under a letter dated 15th November, 2002 issued by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. It is denied that the Respondent No.2 as added defendant had admitted that the defendant had transferred or assigned the suit property to a third party without the consent in writing of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2. It is specifically stated that there could not, cannot or has not been any transfer or assignment of the suit property or the tenancy by the defendant to a third party or to the Respondent No. 2 by reason of amalgamation order issued by the Reserve Bank of India under section 44(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.;