TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing note of the limited issue that is before this Court, we are disposing of these matters finally here and now. 3. The suit out of which these appeals arise is one filed by Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta, the appellant, in the two appeals arising out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal - CC Nos. 5818 and 5819 of 2007. The dispute relates to the administration of a trust named Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust governed by The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The suit challenged a notice dated 27.4.2006 issued for convening a meeting of the trustees on 29.4.2006 to resolve certain disputes and sought a declaration that the resolution allegedly adopted by that meeting was illegal and void and other incidental reliefs. By an order of this Court dated 26.3.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 2007, the suit was directed to be taken up and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and at least within a period of six months from that date. An interim arrangement was also made by that order. It is the common case that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the trial has commenced, the plaintiff examined in part, and her examination remains incomplete, to be continued later. As of now, a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 13.6.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to grant an interim order pending disposal of the Writ Petition, the plaintiff has come up to this Court by way of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal arising out of CC No. 5818 of 2007. 6. The plaintiff, confronted with the order dated 13.6.2007 striking out a portion of her affidavit evidence in chief-examination, moved an application for amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment, she sought to add paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) as also paragraphs 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii) to the plaint. The contesting defendants opposed that application on various grounds. The trial court, by order dated 16.6.2007, dismissed the application. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff filed W.P. No. 4697 of 2007 in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court while admitting the said Writ Petition and issuing notice returnable by 20.7.2007, declined to stay the suit or the operation of the order dated 16.6.2007. This declining to grant stay is challenged in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal arising out of CC No. 5819 of 2007. 7. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants 11 to 13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made and there was no extraordinary circumstance justifying the allowing of the amendment. Similarly, the orders striking out portions of the written statements and the affidavit in chief-examination, also could not be interfered with. It is not for us to consider these arguments at this stage and it is for the contesting defendants to raise these contentions before the High Court wherein the orders of the trial court are under challenge. The High Court which is entertaining the challenge to the orders of the trial court, we are sure, would consider those contentions as well while it takes up the writ petitions for final disposal. 9. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents further submitted that an order of stay of the operation of the orders impugned before the High Court would result in impediment to the trial of the suit and such an order cannot be passed in the light of the specific directions earlier issued by this Court. Counsel further submitted that the High Court had the jurisdiction either to grant an interim stay pending an adjudication or not to grant it and it is not for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, stated by this Court in an interlocutory order in a matter that has come up before it at an interlocutory stage. We therefore see no merit in the apprehension of learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents that a grant of stay by us would send a wrong signal to the High Court. We have no doubt that the High Court will consider the arguments of both sides on merits uninfluenced by anything we have done here and come to its own independent conclusion on merits. 12. Now coming to the question, whether we should interfere and grant an interim order of stay of operation of the orders refusing the amendment of the plaint, striking out portions of the written statement of defendants 11, 12 and 13 and striking out portions of the chief-examination of the plaintiff from the affidavit tendered in that behalf, we see no reason to stay the operation of the order refusing the amendment of the plaint. Such order of stay would be meaningless since as of now there is no amendment of the plaint and an amendment would come into existence only if the High Court finds it a case where interference is called for in the light of the relevant arguments that may be raised before it. But, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered both by the High Court while dealing with the issue and by the trial court when it deals with the suit finally. Suffice it to say that in order only to ensure that there is no possibility of a truncated trial, we stay the operation of the orders striking out portions of the written statement of defendants 11, 12 and 13 and portions of the affidavit tendered in chief-examination by the plaintiff. We make it clear that what part of the written statement of defendant No. 11 and of defendants 12 and 13 and what part of the evidence are to be ignored, are matters that will depend upon the decision to be rendered by the High Court in the matters pending before it and to be considered by the trial court when it finally disposes of the suit and if its order were to be upheld by the High Court, to be consistent with the order it has already passed. 13. At the same time, we think it necessary to clarify that the trial of the suit will go on and there will be no impediment to it. We find that the High Court has posted the matter on 20.7.2007 and all parties agreed before us that they will be ready to argue the matter that day. We request the High Court to ensure that the writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
