JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. IA No.3766/2019) in CS(COMM) No.1169/2016, IA No.3768/2019 in CS(OS) No.593/2009 & IA No.3764/2019 in CS(OS) No.594/2009 (all for exemptions) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. CS(COMM) No.1169/2016, CS(OS) Nos. 593/2009 & 594/2009 3. These three suits, filed as far back as in the year 2009 under Order XXXVII of the CPC, are still pending at the stage of arguments on the applications of the defendants for leave to defend. 4. Cs(Comm) No.1169/2016 (Old No.592/2009), though initially filed against Harangi Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd., B. Ramalinga Raju and P. Teja Raju, now survives only against the first two with the name of defendant no.3 P. Teja Raju having been deleted upon a settlement having been arrived with the plaintiff. Similarly, CS(OS) Nos.593/2009 and 594/2009 though originally had two defendants each i.e. B. Ramalinga Raju and P. Teja Raju, now have only B. Ramalinga Raju as the sole defendant with the name of P. Teja Raju having been deleted as aforesaid. 5. The counsel for the defendants in all the suits has drawn attention to the order dated 22nd January, 2013 in CS(OS) Nos.593/2009 & 594/2009, though allowing the application of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint but granting liberty to the defendants to at the stage of hearing of the arguments on leave to defend applications, contend that the plaints having been allowed to be amended after the filing of the applications for leave to defend, the suits could no longer continue as suits under Order XXXVII of the CPC and ought to be treated as ordinary suits. 6. It is unfortunate that in the last six years, no decision on the said aspect has been taken. 7. The counsels inform that the defendants in all the suits, in their applications for leave to defend had inter alia taken a plea that the plaintiffs had realised the dues claimed in each of the suits by liquidation of the security taken to secure the loan and thus no amounts were due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. 8. Upon such objection being taken by the defendants, the plaintiffs, who in the plaints as filed, while computing the amounts claimed had not adjusted the said amounts, amended the plaints to adjust the said amounts and reduced the claim in the suits to a lesser amount than initially claimed. 9. 8. Upon such objection being taken by the defendants, the plaintiffs, who in the plaints as filed, while computing the amounts claimed had not adjusted the said amounts, amended the plaints to adjust the said amounts and reduced the claim in the suits to a lesser amount than initially claimed. 9. It is the plea of the defendants that the valuation at which adjustment has been made by the plaintiffs is incorrect and in fact the entire outstanding stands satisfied with the liquidation of the security. 10. The counsels clarify that the security was in the form of shares of Maytas Ltd. and while some of the said shares were sold prior to the institution of the suits, the remaining shares were sold after the institution of the suits. 11. It is the contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs that the amendment having been confined to the value realized of the security, has no effect on the maintainability of the suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC. 12. I have considered the aforesaid factual scenario and I am of the view that the question which arises for adjudication is as to the value realized on liquidation of security and the balance amount if any due remaining thereafter. The said question cannot be decided at the stage of leave to defend. 13. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that even if the leave to defend is to be granted, the same should be subject to terms i.e. either the defendants should be directed to deposit the claimed amount in this Court or should be directed to file an affidavit disclosing their unencumbered assets. 14. On enquiry, it is informed that though there is an interim injunction in force in these suits restraining the defendants from alienating their assets but the particulars of the assets are not available to the plaintiffs. 15. The counsel for the defendants states that he is at the moment unable to state what are the liquid securities available with the defendants. 16. The suits have already remained pending for the last ten years and even if had been filed as an ordinary suit, at least the trial would have been completed therein. 15. The counsel for the defendants states that he is at the moment unable to state what are the liquid securities available with the defendants. 16. The suits have already remained pending for the last ten years and even if had been filed as an ordinary suit, at least the trial would have been completed therein. It is thus not deemed appropriate to waste any further time and the leave to defend applications in these suits being IA Nos.7767/2013, 7768/2013, 5545/2013, & 5540/2013 are disposed of by granting leave to the defendants to contest the suits, with a direction to the defendants to, within four weeks of today file detailed affidavits in this Court with advance copy to the counsel for the plaintiffs, setting out (i) the unencumbered assets of the defendants along with the supporting documents; (ii) disclosing the place of residence of the defendant B. Ramalinga Raju and his family members and their title thereto along with supporting documents; (iii) detailing the present vocation of B. Ramalinga Raju; and, (iv) detailing the present financial position of defendant Harangi Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd. along with photocopies of the balance sheets thereof for the last ten years. 17. As far as the suits are concerned, written statement be filed within 30 days. 18. Considering that the suits have already remained pending for long and leave to defend applications have already been filed, it is clarified that no extension for filing written statement shall be granted. 19. Replications within 30 days of receipt of the written statement. 20. The parties to file affidavits by way of admission / denial of each others' documents before the next date of hearing. 21. List for considering the affidavits aforesaid of the defendants on 17th May, 2019 and list on 7th August, 2019 for framing of issues if any and for consideration of all other pending applications.