JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the instant application praying for induction of the petitioner in the Board of Management after adding them as party defendant in the present suit. The petitioner no.1 is the son of Late Chiman Lal Ojha and the petitioner no. 2 is the son of Late Pramode Rai Ojha. 2. One Amrit Lal Ojha, since deceased, the grandfather of the petitioners had formed a Company namely M/s. Calcutta Safe Deposit Co. Ltd., the respondent no.1 herein. Amrit Lal Ojha died in the year 1944 and after his death certain dispute and differences arose between the sons of the deceased Amrit Lal Ojha with respect of the Company, respondent no.1 herein. The father of the petitioner no. 2 namely, Pramode Rai Ojha, since deceased had filed a suit before this Court being CS. No. 560 of 1976 praying for management and administration of the respondent no. 1 company. During the pendency of the suit, parties have entered into a terms and settlement on 16th January, 1989 and on the basis of the settlement this Court had disposed of the suit by passing the following order : “TERMS OF SETTLEMENT Consent of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 4, 5 and 8 herein the following order is made : The suit is treated on the day’s list. All interim orders passed in the suit till today are modified as follows: a) Sri Gunvant Roy Ojha, Shri Chimanlal Ojha, Shri Navin Chandra Ojha, Shri Promodray Ojha and Sriram Amritlal Ojha are appointed members of an interim Board of Management of Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) with all the powers conferred upon the Special Officers appointed from time to time by the Hon’ble Court with power to manage the day to day affairs of the company jointly and with liberty to jointly operate all the bank accounts of the company, as well as the accounts with the United Bank of India, High Court Branch, Calcutta, now being operated by the Chairman, Sri J.N. Roy, they will be entitled to remuneration & Rs. 1,000/-each per month. b) The Senior most member by age will be the chairman of the interim Board of Management of Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Ltd. and will be entitled to an additional remuneration of Rs. 250/-per month for acting as Chairman. c) Mr. 1,000/-each per month. b) The Senior most member by age will be the chairman of the interim Board of Management of Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Ltd. and will be entitled to an additional remuneration of Rs. 250/-per month for acting as Chairman. c) Mr. J.N. Roy, Bar-at Law the outgoing Chairman is discharged from further acting as Chairman is discharged from further acting as Chairman of the company. He shall hand over all the papers and documents of the company lying with him to the interim Board of Management and filling of accounts by Mr. J.N. Roy is dispensed with Mr. J.N. Roy is authorised to make the following payments before such discharged out of the funds of the said company. i) The sum of Rs. 21,000/-received by him earlier under order dated 21st February, 1988 past in Appeal No. 510 of 1987 (Navin Chandra Ojha Vs. Promodray Ojha & Others) to Sri Promodray Ojha. ii) The salary for the current month to the employees of the said company along with the additional amount of Rs. 7,000/-out of the funds of the company. iii) Mr. J.N. Roy shall be paid further remuneration as the court may deem fit and proper. 4. The interim Board of Management will take all necessary steps to regularise the affairs of Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Ltd. 5. All parties including the Interim Board of Management and outgoing Chairman, Shri J.N. Roy, Bar-at-Law to act on signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking. Dated this 16th day of January, 1989. Being aggrieved with the order passed by this Court dt. 16.01.1989 in Suit No. 560 of 1976 an appeal was preferred by Girish Chandra Amritlal Ojha and Others being Appeal No. 123 of 1991. The said appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Court on 10.04.1992 by passing the following order:- “It appears that the appellant has clarified the position while the copy on an order could not be produce in terms of the undertaking. We are satisfied and accept the same and discharge the appellant of the undertaking given to the court in this respect. As result of our finding as above, this appeal succeeds and the order impugned stands modified on the following terms. a) The appellant, Girish Chandra Ojha is appointed a member of the Interim Board of Management. We are satisfied and accept the same and discharge the appellant of the undertaking given to the court in this respect. As result of our finding as above, this appeal succeeds and the order impugned stands modified on the following terms. a) The appellant, Girish Chandra Ojha is appointed a member of the Interim Board of Management. b) In place of deceased Gunamantaroy Ojha, his wife Mayadebi Ojha is appointed a member of the interim board of Management of the company. c) Other members of the Interim Board of Management shall continue to function as member of the same Board. d) The Board of Management is directed to prepare and upto date the share register of the company within a period of 10 weeks from this date. e) The board of Management will lock filed the day to day functioning of the company and also to measure to product the interest of the customers of the company. f) The Bank account of the company will be operated jointly under signature of the four of the members of the Interim Board of Management. g) The other powers and authority granted to the Interim Board of Management by an order dated 16.1.89 not modified by this order, shall remain in force. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties to act on the signed copy of the operative part of the judgment on the usual undertaking. The Advocate for the respondent prayed for stay of the order which is refused.” 3. Shri Navin Chandra Ojha, one of the son of the deceased Amrit Lal Ojha during his life time filed the present suit praying for the following reliefs : “a) Declaration that, the Interim Board of Management constituted under the Terms of Settlement recorded by the Order dated 16th January, 1989 is void and/or nullity; b) Decree superseding the Interim Board of Management constituted by the Terms of Settlement recorded by the Order dated 16th January, 1989 as modified by the Order dated 10th April, 1992; c) A scheme be framed by this Hon’ble Court for the management and administration of the affairs of the defendant no. 1 company in such manner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them from representing and/or holding themselves out to be members of the Interim Board of Management or to be the persons in the control and management of the defendant no. 1 company; e) Injunction restraining the defendants and/or their men, servants and agents and each of them from selling alienating, disposing of and/or in any manner dealing with and/or encumbering any assets and properties of the defendant no. 1 company including the vacant spaces of the building situated at 23B, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-700001; f) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them from interfering with the business affairs of the defendant no. 1 company in any manner whatsoever; g) A decree directing the investigation into the affairs of the defendant no. 1 company and into the conduct of the defendants and all consequential orders to be made upon such investigation being completed on such terms and this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; h) A decree directing the regularization of the affairs of the defendant company by reconstruction of the Register of Shareholders, convening the Annual General Meeting and filing return with the Registrar of Companies. West Bengal in such manner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; i) A decree directing the accounts of the defendant No. 1 to be properly audited; j) Receiver; k) Injunction; l) Attachment; m) Costs and n) Further and other reliefs.” 4. In the present suit, the father of the petitioner no. 2 was the defendant no. 2 and mother of the petitioner no.1 was the defendant no.4 but after their death, the name of the father of the petitioner no. 2 and the name of the mother of petitioner no.1 were deleted. 5. The shares of the company are primarily held by the legal representatives of Late Amrit Lal Ojha. The father of the petitioners Pramode Rai Ohja and Chimanlal Ojha (both since deceased), were the share holders of the respondent company. 6. 2 and the name of the mother of petitioner no.1 were deleted. 5. The shares of the company are primarily held by the legal representatives of Late Amrit Lal Ojha. The father of the petitioners Pramode Rai Ohja and Chimanlal Ojha (both since deceased), were the share holders of the respondent company. 6. At the time of disposal of the previous suit being C.S. No. 560 of 1976 dated 16th January, 1989 as per the terms and settlement arrived between the parties, the father of the petitioners were also appointed as member of the Interim Board of Management of the respondent no.1 Company and till their death, the father of the petitioner were the members of the Interim Board of Management. After the death of Chimanlal Ojha, his wife Maya Devi Ojha became the one of the members of the Interim Board of Management and was also made as defendant no. 4 in the present suit. 7. Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondent no. 5 submits that the respondent no. 5 has no-objection for allowing the petitioners to be a member of the Interim Board of Management as since beginning the father of the petitioners was the member of the Interim Board of Management. 8. Admittedly, the father of the petitioners were the shareholder of the respondent no.1 Company, were also the member of the Interim Board of Management of the Company and after the death of the father of the petitioner no.1, the mother was inducted as member of the Interim Board of Management and was also made as defendant in the instant suit. Thus this Court is of the view that the name of the petitioner no. 2 shall be added as substituted defendant no. 2 and the name of the petitioner no.1 shall be added as substituted defendant no. 4 in the present suit. 9. As the petitioners were substituted as defendant nos. 2 and 4 in the suit and thus the petitioners shall be inducted as members of the Interim Board of Management in place of Pramode Rai Ojha and Smt. Maya Devi Ojha. 10. G.A. No. 21 of 2022 is thus disposed of.