Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jahoor Ahmad and others 397
dismissed and parties shall bear their own
costs. It reads as under:
"4571. In the result, . . . . . . . . Suits 3
and 4 are dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case the parties shall bear their own
costs."
65. D.V. Sharma, J. has said in his
separate judgement in OOS No. 4 of 1989
at page 219, Vol. IV (page 3474 Vol. III of
the report) as under:
"The suit is dismissed but the parties
shall bear their own costs."
66. In our view the Court's decision
is the majority decision consisting of
Sudhir Agarwal and D.V. Sharma, JJ. and,
therefore, the decree shall contain the order
as under:
The Court's order (by majority of
Sudhir Agarwal and D.V. Sharma, JJ.):
"Suit is dismissed. Cost made
easy."
67. The objections otherwise on this
aspect stand rejected in view of our
discussion made above.
68. The objections vide para 1 of
C.M. Application No. 23(O) of 2010
intends to take note of certain fact which is
not borne out from the record. Till the
matter was decided or even when the
judgment was reserved no such
information was placed on record that
plaintiff no. 9 (Suit-4) Mahmud Ahmad
has expired. No application was also
placed on record for bringing his heirs on
record. We, therefore, at the stage of
preparation of decree cannot direct any
such change which requires verification of
certain facts. The objection as contained in
para 1 of application is hereby rejected.
69. The request made vide para 2 of
Application No. 23(O) of 2010 also, we
are afraid, cannot be granted. As per order,
in the array of parties after the name of Sri
Gopal Singh Visharad the word "deleted"
is already there. The name of Mahant
Suresh Das was impleaded as defendant
no. 2/1 and, therefore, it has been
mentioned in the same manner. Since there
is no order changing the chronology of
various defendants and, therefore, at this
stage we do not find any justification for
changing the chronology of defendants and
hence, no correction is required as
requested in para 2 of the application. It is
accordingly rejected.
70. So far as para 3 of Application
No. 23(O) of 2010 is concerned, we find
that description of party is the same as
contained in original plaint. Hence, no
correction can be permitted at this stage.
Regarding the death of Priya Dutt Ram,
Receiver, it is true that there is no order on
record to mention it in the array of parties
against defendant no. 9 in Suit-4 but this
fact has already been taken note in the
judgement of Sudhir Agarwal, J. and,
therefore, this fact can be mentioned in
array of parties. We direct that in the
description of defendant no. 9 in Suit-4
after description of defendant no. 9
following shall be added: "(now dead)".
71. Coming to the request made in
para 4 of Application No. 23(O) of 2010
we find that in the description of defendant
no. 21 it is already mentioned that he died
on 23.07.1994, therefore, nothing further is
required.