INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD Vs. AMIT ROYCHOUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While C.M. Application No. 35 of 2013 filed in connection with this revisional case is taken up for hearing, it has been proposed by the learned counsel of both side that the entire revisional case, if so considered by this Court may be disposed of and in that case, a separate order of temporary injunction, as sought for, in CM. Application No. 35 of 2013 may not be passed by this Court and that may be kept open for the petitioner of C.M. application to approach the trial court without wasting time. It is therefore, considered that the revisional application may be finally disposed of since learned counsel of both side are present and a simple issue is involved in the revisional case.

(2.) Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7, learned counsel, Mr. P. Chakraborty for the respondent No. 8 and learned counsel, Mr. S. Datta for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10.

(3.) The petitioner herein, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. instituted Title Suit No. 59 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 1 inter alia seeking Specific Performance of Contract and other consequential relief. The suit property for which, the civil suit has been instituted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short, IOC) originally belonged to respondent Nos. 1 to 7. According to IOC, there was a contract between the IOC and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and while the agreement was still in force, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 sold out that property to defendant No. 8 for valuable consideration. Defendant No. 8 mortgaged the property to defendant No. 9 while taking a loan and that loan could not be paid by defendant No. 8 in terms of the loan agreement and as a result thereof, defendant No. 9, the UCO Bank pursuant to the provisions prescribed in Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SRFAESI Act), entered in an agreement with ASREC (India) Limited (respondent No. 10) and thereby, ASREC acquired and/or purchased the mortgaged land and taken over the property from UCO Bank. In view of the agreement between defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in respect of the suit property, respondent No. 10 made an application before the trial court for adding them as a party and respondent No. 9, UCO Bank made another application praying for striking out their name from the array of defendants in the suit. The petitioner herein i.e. IOC, who is the plaintiff in this suit raised objection that for proper adjudication of the suit even if, respondent No. 10 i.e. ASREC is added as a party, but, presence of UCO Bank also necessary for adjudication of the suit. The trial court i.e. the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 1, Agartala by order dated 11.04.2012 allowed both the petitions filed by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 and thereby, added respondent No. 10 as a defendant in the suit and deleted the name of respondent No. 9 i.e. the UCO Bank from the array of defendants.