- (1.) The applicant has laid this misc. application under Article 226 of the Constitution for recalling the order dated 28th May 2014, passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6904 of 2013 (M/s. National Automobiles & Ors. Vs. IOCL & Ors.)
(2.) In the aforesaid writ petition, applicant made endeavour to be impleaded as respondent by way of laying application under Article 226 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC through her counsel Dr. Aklovya Bhansali. The matter came up on 28th May 2014 in presence of counsel for the applicant and after hearing him order was passed for which this recalling application is filed. It is true that on her application formal order of her impleadment was not passed by the Court but indulgence was granted to her and taking into account submissions made on her behalf by counsel, petition was disposed of by the aforesaid order.
(3.) Applicant Smt. Shanti Devi and other partners of the firm M/s. National Automobiles are siblings as they are daughter and sons of Late Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. The applicant has set out her case for recalling the order taking shelter of under-mentioned facts: 1. The first objection for recalling the order, as set out in the application, is that Prakash Chandra unauthorizedly filed writ petition in the name of firm M/s. National Automobiles. As per version of the applicant, earlier it was a proprietorship firm run by sole proprietor Late Shri Bhanwarlal and being daughter of Late Shri Bhanwarlalji she is entitled to 1/7 th share in the property together with her other siblings, i.e., the alleged partners of the firm. A ground for recalling order is also set out in the application by urging that order dated 28th of May 2014 was passed without deciding applicant's application for her impleadment as party respondent to the writ petition with a clear recital in the order that her counsel has accepted the proposal floated by the counsel for the petitioner. In order to wriggle out from the concessions offered by the counsel representing the cause of the applicant, she has made an attempt to castigate the lawyer by alleging in the application that she was never consulted by the counsel before conveying her consent for the agreed order. The whole trust of the applicant is that no such concession by her counsel was possible without her impleadment as party to the litigation. While taking a dig at the consensual order dated 28 th May 2014, applicant has specifically averred in the application that demarcation and entitlement of 1/7th share in the profit of the petitioner firm has been made subject to the outcome of the suit for partition laid by her without any rhyme and reason inasmuch as subject matter of the suit for partition is having no nexus whatsoever with the profits/earnings of the petitioner firm and the said suit is confined to partition of other ancestral properties, therefore, as per version of the applicant, the order has virtually frustrated her cause. 2. An attempt is sought to be made by the applicant that M/s. National Automobiles was a proprietorship firm operated by Late Shri Bhanwarlalji, her father, and that an agreement was entered into between the firm and respondent IOCL for sale of SKO, i.e., kerosene and oil, and another with regard to retail outlet for sale of Motor Sprit and High Speed Diesel. In respect of retail outlet for sale of Motor Sprit and High Speed Diesel, according to the applicant, till the death of Late Bhanwarlalji, said firm was proprietorship firm and after his death her siblings, i.e., her brothers have constituted partnership firm for continuing business in the name of petitioner firm after forging her signatures on various affidavits and alleged No Objection. It is further reiterated that subsequently in the year 2008 also, affidavits were prepared on the strength of her spurious signatures for submission before IOCL. The requisite affidavits are also annexed with the application. A reference is also made by the applicant in regard to lodging of a criminal case against her siblings with a specific averment that for offence of forgery competent Court has taken cognizance against her siblings, the alleged partners of the firm. In totality, much emphasis is laid on the alleged act of forgery by the partners of the petitioner firm. 3. While adverting to SKO agency, which was the subject matter of writ petition, applicant has reiterated that earlier it was a proprietorship firm and deed of dealership was executed in between Late Shri Bhanwarlalji, as its sole proprietor and IOCL on 25th September 1957, and after death of Bhanwarlalji no partnership deed qua the firm was ever submitted before the Corporation which entailed termination of the dealership on 28 th May 2013. In this regard, certain documents obtained by the applicant under the RTI Act are also placed on record with the application. Making scathing attack on the alleged dubious conduct of the petitioner, the applicant has asserted that petitioner had no locus to file petition in her name. Yet again, the applicant has reiterated her earlier stand that she has never consented for deposition of 1/7 th share of firm's profit in bank account while agreeing that realization of the same shall remain subject to the outcome of suit. 4. Highlighting recitals in the order, the applicant has submitted in the application that a proposal was floated by counsel for the petitioner and the same was accepted by the counsel representing cause of the applicant without there being any deliberations with her and as a matter of fact she never consented for the said arrangement. 5. The applicant has also made an attempt to find fault with the order by alleging that without her impleadment as party, even if consent was there through her counsel, the same is of no consequence. It is also averred in the application that the applicant was made to understand by her counsel that by the order dated 28th May 2014 Court has allowed her 1/7th share in the profits of firm M/s. National Automobiles, and therefore while adhering to the instructions of the counsels she signed and submitted affidavits before IOCL on 4 th of June 2014. For signing affidavits, applicant has urged in the application that she is an illiterate lady and her husband is also uneducated therefore both were unable to understand English and there was some communication gap between her and the counsel representing her case in the writ petition. The recitals of the affidavits submitted by her before the IOCL are also highlighted by placing on record the copies of affidavits. 6. The applicant has also averred that as per advice tendered by her counsel, she has submitted an application before the learned trial Court, where suit for partition is pending, for making necessary amendment in the suit, which is still pending consideration. 7. The applicant has made an attempt to project that for the first time she came to know about the real contents of order dated 28th May 2014 when she received a notice of contempt of this Court in a contempt petition filed by petitioner firm and so also by respondent IOCL, wherein it was alleged that she has not submitted the requisite affidavit in prescribed format in adherence of the directions of this Court.;