- (1.) THE added defendant petitions for the suit to be dismissed on the grounds that the plaint relating thereto discloses no cause of action and the suit is barred by law. In effect, the parties quibble over their rights as to large tracts of valuable land in commercial Howrah.
(2.) THE narration of events has to begin with a reference to Suit No. 85 of 1984 wherein the plaintiffs' claim in such suit was discharged upon satisfaction in that regard being recorded by an order of November 27,1991. The plaintiffs in the 1984 suit carried on business under the name and style of "himalayan Trade Links" (hereinafter referred to as Himalayan ). Himalayan had given a loan to Katihar Jute Mills Limited, the first defendant in the 1984 suit (hereinafter referred to as Katihar ). Morgan Walker and Company Limited, the second defendant in the 1984 suit (hereinafter referred to as Morgan), had guaranteed repayment of the loan obtained by Katihar from Himalayan. Himalayan sued both the principal debtor and the guarantor in the 1984 suit.
(3.) MORGAN gave the guarantee on Katihar's behalf against a counter claim furnished by Pratap Properties Limited, the first defendant in this suit (hereinafter referred to as Pratap), and an equitable mortgage created by Pratap of some of its properties by deposit of title deeds relating thereto with Morgan. Shortly upon Himalayan seeking to press its claim against Katihar and Morgan, morgan sought to enforce the mortgage created by Pratap by instituting Title suit No. 12 of 1986 in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, at howrah with the primary relief claimed being one for a decree for Rs. 70 lakh odd, about the amount of the claim made by Himalayan in the 1984 suit. It is the Howrah suit which has been transferred to this Court and in which the added defendant's application has now been made, inter alia, for dismissal of the action.;