JUDGMENT

N. J. Jamadar, J. - This Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicants seeking their impleadment as the plaintiffs either by deleting extant plaintiffs or by adding the applicants as plaintiff nos.6 to 10.

2. As the dispute spans over a period of 40 years, it may be apposite to note the facts which led to the instant chamber summons, in a little detail.

(a) Plaintiff nos.1 to 5 claimed themselves to be promoters of the proposed Pateshwar Co-operative Housing Society. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants agreed to sale the land bearing Survey no.42 (part) and CTS No.286 admeasuring 20,698.60 sq. mtrs. situated at village Hariali, Vikhroli, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ''the suit property''), in favour of the plaintiffs by executing an Agreement for Sale dated 18th July, 1978. The suit property was proposed to be purchased by the plaintiffs for construction of houses for 108 members of the proposed Pateshwar Co-operative Housing Society, the name of which came to be changed from, "Gurunagar Co-operative Housing Society".

(b) A notifcation under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, to acquire the suit property were issued by the Government. Pursuant to the efforts made by the plaintiffs, the suit property came to be released from the acquisition in favour of the, "Gurunagar Cooperative Housing Society". On or about 10th December, 1979, the plaintiffs prepared the indenture of sale and got it duly stamped. However, on or about 15th January, 1980, the defendants wrongfully terminated the said Agreement for Sale.

(c) A supplemental Agreement dated 17th December, 1982, came to be executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants. It was agreed that the plaintiffs would pay an additional consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- over and above the consideration paid under the Agreement dated 18th July, 1978. The defendants received the said additional consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- as well. The defendants, however, failed to forward the requisite certifcate under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1995, as it stood then, in order to complete the conveyance. Instead, by a communication dated 27th May, 1983, the defendants wrongfully terminated the Agreements for Sale. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the suit for declaration that the original Agreement for Sale dated 18th July, 1978, and the supplemental Agreement for Sale dated 17th December, 1982, are valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants and for the specifc performance of the contract for sale contained therein.

(d) The principal defence of the defendants, as set out in the written statement of defendant nos.2(a) to 2(d), 3 to 9, 11 and 12 dated 8th August, 2003, is of a valid termination of the Agreement for Sale dated 18th July, 1978, by the defendants on 15th January, 1980. Consequently, the defendants contended that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

(e) In the aforesaid backdrop, the applicants have taken out this Chamber Summons asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have not been diligently prosecuting the suit and cause of the society, for which the suit property was agreed to be purchased. The suit was, thus, dismissed in default of appearance of the plaintiffs on 1st March, 2000.

(f) The members of the society in a Special General Body meeting held on 16th July, 2000, after noting the acts, of commission and omission of the plaintiffs, prejudicial to the interest of the society, passed a resolution to remove the plaintiffs from the position of the promoters of the society. Instead, by another resolution, the applicants came to be appointed as the promoters. Thereupon, the applicants ascertained the status of the suit. It was noticed that the plaintiffs had fled Notice of Motion No.1123 of 2000, for setting aside the dismissal order. However, as the plaintiffs have been removed from the position of the promoters of the society for the conduct, prejudicial to the interest of the society, the