Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This revision petition is filed by the[ revision petitioner/Defendant No.5 against the order dated 01.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.136 of 2016 by the Principal District Judge at Bhongir.

2. I.A.No.3 of 2022 was filed by the respondent No.1 herein under Order I Rule 10 r/w.Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') to implead the Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as defendant being necessary party to be heard. The plea of the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2022 is that the plaintiff has filed the suit to mis-lead the Court by concealing the material facts for her personal gain, her brothers and sisters who are proforma defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the correct facts are that the company Golden Forest India Limited (for brevity 'GFIL') and its subsidiary companies were bonafide purchasers of the land under reference and there are certain restraint orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding jurisdiction of other Courts including the Court below with regard to the property matters of these companies. The plaintiff has mischievously obtained preliminary decree on 25.06.2018 by playing fraud on the Court and with an intention to cheat the applicant and other investors of the GFIL and its subsidiary companies, that the judgment was passed without hearing the Committee who is proper party with respect to defendant Nos.6 and 7 who were proceeded against ex parte along with other defendants. The further contention of the petitioner therein is that GFIL under Collective Investment Scheme of SEBI collected huge funds from poor investors all over the country and thereafter started defaulting returns. Therefore, SEBI passed a restraint order on 09.01.1998 and thereafter filed W.P.No.344 of 1998 before the High Court of Bombay which was later transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed the petitioner-Committee therein vide order dated 19.08.2004 passed in T.C. (C) No.2 of 2004 between Securities & Exchange Board of India Vs Golden Forests (India) Limited mandating to take into its custody all the assets of GFIL and its subsidiary/associate companies, realize them and to file a report of realized funds to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to enable the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to disbursement of funds to the investors. Since the GFIL and its other group companies closed their business in December 2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed the Committee on 19.08.2004, therefore, the Company is a necessary party to be heard in the matters relating to Golden Forest Group Companies.

10. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that the Committee was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all the claims of the third parties are also to be heard by the Committee and the plaintiff without any right filed the suit for partition, that the two sons of B.Rajaiah i.e., B.Mallesh and B.Santosh sold the property to Sri S.R.Reddy in the year 1989 itself. Suppressing the same, the plaintiff filed the suit and the properties which are purchased by the GFIL are under the control of Committee and any third party claim has to be submitted before the Committee only. As such, there is no illegality in the order of the Court below in impleading the respondent No.1 as party to the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2017 and hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the present Revision petition.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material on record, it is seen that the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff is the sister of defendants and they are claiming partition of the properties of their father late B.Rajaiah, wherein the GFIL is also made as a defendant, but they were set ex parte. Though the revision petitioner states that the Committee is a third party to the suit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically stated that any third party claims have to be reported before the Committee only. The further contention of revision petitioner is that the Committee cannot be impleaded at the time of final decree proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another Vs Chakiri Yanadi 1 held as follows :

12. In view of the observations made in the above judgment, it is clear that there is no legal embargo against impleadment of any new parties after preliminary decree in a suit for partition, as the suit for partition stands disposed only after passing of final decree, as there can be any number of preliminary decrees. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of revision petitioner that after passing of preliminary decree parties cannot be impleaded in the final decree proceedings. The revision petitioner in her petition averred about the co-parcenary rights and the rights of daughter in partition suit. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent herein is the Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to GFIL properties. Admittedly, GFIL was made as defendant and there is no contest from the said Company. Making GFIL as party shows the role of said company in the property. As such, it cannot be said that respondent herein has no role in the present proceedings.