IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance with court orders and failure to provide sufficient cause for delay can lead to the dismissal of a suit.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The instant application has been filed by the plaintiff No.1, inter alia, seeking for recalling of the order dated 20th May, 2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court, wherein the Court has dismissed the suit along with its connected applications.

2. The Plaintiffs have instituted a suit being C.S. No. 175 of 2014 on or about 8th day of May, 2014 praying for the following reliefs:

a) Declaration that the purported amendments of the Deed of Trust dated 5th April, 2011, by the deeds dated 21st November, 2011, 2nd November, 2012 and 8th February, 2013 are wrongful, and illegal and are consequently non-est and of no effect at all; b) Declaration that the provisions of Clause 7.1 and 9.6 of the Deed of Trust dated 5th April, 2011 are contrary to law and are as null and void and of no effect or consequence whatsoever;

c) Declaration that the plaintiff No.1 is a trustee of the HBBFT and that her purported removal as trustee thereof is wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no effect or consequence whatsoever;

d) Declaration that the plaintiffs are beneficiaries of HBBFT and that their purported removal as beneficiaries of the said trust is wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no effect or consequence whatsoever;

e) Declaration that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have not been validly appointed as and are not trustees of HBBFT and consequently cannot act as such;

f) Delivery up and cancellation of the alleged amendment deeds dated 21st November, 2011, 2nd November, 2012 and 8th February, 2013 forming Annexure “B” “C” and “D” to the plaint;

g) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.3 and 4 from representing or holding themselves out to be trustees of HBBFT or from acting as such;

h) Declaration that the appointment of the defendant No.5 as advisor of HBBFT is wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no effect or consequence whatsoever;

i) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.5 form representing or holding himself out to be the advisor of HBBFT or form acting as such;

j) Declaration that the purported amendment of the provisions of the Deed of Trust dated 5th April, 2011 providing for appointment of minimum of 4 trustees in place and stead of the originally stipulated minimum 7 of trustees is wrongful and bad in law;

k) Declaration that all acts done by any Board of HBBFT comprised of less than 7 trustees is bad in law and non-est;

l) Declaration that after the death of Hemendra Prasad Barooah there was in any event no Board of Trustees any event no Board of Trustees of HBBFT and all acts done by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 purporting to represent themselves as the Board of the HBBFT are wrongful, invalid and non-est;

m) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.2 or any of the purported trustees of HBBFT including the defendant Nos.3 and 4 from voting on the strength of the said 5.09% shareholding of HBBFT in B&A Limited or from otherwise relying on the said shares or exercising any right in respect thereof also all past voting to be declared null and void;

n) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.2 or any of the purported trustees of HBBFT including the defendant Nos.3 and 4 from in any manner dealing with any property of the Trust including any share of B&A Limited; Kaziranga Golf Club Private Limited; Hacienda Properties Private Limited; Heritage North East Properties Private Limited and Barooahs & Associates Private Limited;

o) Decree directing the removal of the defendant No.2 as trustee of HBBFT;

p) Decree directing the reconstitution of the Board of Trustees of HBBFT with the plaintiff No.1' as a trustee and the appointment of six fit and proper independent trustees

q) Receiver;

r) Injunction;

s) Costs;

t) Further or other reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be entitled.

3. The suit was filed in the year 2014 and on 8th May, 2014, the plaint was admitted subject to scrutiny by the department. On scrutiny of the plaint altogether eight defects we