- (1.) Yet another Miscellaneous Application is filed on 2nd August 2017 by the Respondent (R-3). At the outset we are using the word "Yet another", because the records of this case are having sufficient number of Miscellaneous Applications filed one after another. May or may not be all by this Applicant. But this fact cannot be denied that the Main Petition was filed way back in the year 2009 but could not have reached to the final conclusion or final hearing owing to such type of protracted litigation caused by plethora of Interim Applications and consequent thereupon several Interim decisions. This case can be quoted as an example of long-drawn-out prolonged litigation resulting into huge pendency of undecided Petitions, earlier before erstwhile CLB and now transferred to newly created NCLT. In this context it is often quoted 'the corridors of the courts are flooded with litigation', thus, in our humble opinion require a solemn contemplation.
(2.) Reason for filing of this Application is that an 'Interim Order on Maintainability' was passed by this bench on 14/06/2017 wherein held that the Petition is 'Maintainable'. The Applicant has moved this application for recalling of the said order on the ground of alleged apparent mistake. Nevertheless, after assigning several reason in the detailed order, the last paragraph of the order reads as under:- "4) In the light of the above discussion the impugned preliminary objection is hereby rejected. The Petition in question had already been admitted way back in the year 2009. Thereafter the pleadings have also been completed. Hearings also took place to finalize the case. There is no reason to hold the Petition as non-maintainable. This type of frivolous objection after objection must be discouraged hence as a deterrence there is a provision of imposition of cost, however at present pardoned. Petition shall be decided on merits hence directed to list for hearing on 10th July 2017. Registry shall intimate the parties accordingly."
(3.) In this application it is stated that the question of Maintainability was very much raised at the beginning of the trial before the then CLB however remained undecided. For ready reference only the relevant portions are reproduced below:- "(d) The kind observations at para 3.1 (Page 5) of Annexure-5 are again based on false premise that maintainability of petition has sprung up for first time in March 2017 which again is contrary to the records. As rightly observed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, a duty i$ cast to do full justice to parties, howsoever burdensome it is, to review the Order as per Annexure-5 and dismiss the petition as not maintainable. (e) The kind observations at para 3.2 (Page 5) that point of maintainability is to be considered at beginning of trial is partly correct in the sense that trial began only on 31-07-2013 when Petitioner completed his main argument and all stages before said date were preparatory to trial in nature and effect. Thus the Respondent No. 2(a) has raised the issue of maintainability of petition on 26-08-2013 which was at the first available opportunity. It is a settled position in law that trial in a civil proceedings begins on framing of issues. Issues could not be said to have arisen before completion of pleadings in this case on 16-04-2013 and subsequent arguments of Petitioner.";