JUDGMENT : KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The applicants, namely, Aloka Ojha and Meera Seal have filed this present Review Application for review of the order passed by this Court dated 12th April, 2023 in G.A. No. 21 of 2022 in C.S. No. 159 of 2010 along with an application being G.A. No. 1 of 2024 for condoning the delay of 329 days in preferring the review application and G.A. No. 2 of 2024 for staying of the order dated 12th April, 2023. The Review Application along with connected applications are taken up for hearing together. 2. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Learned Advocate representing the petitioners submits that at the internal page 6 last paragraph and page 7 second last and last paragraph of the judgment dated 12th April, 2023, it is recorded that the mother of the petitioner no.1 was the defendant no.4. He submits that Maya Devi Ojha was not the mother of Anup Ojha.Anup Ojha is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha and Late Mridula Devi Ojha, who are not the defendants in the suit filed by the petitioners. 3. Mr. Ghosh submits that in the said order, it is recorded that Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Chimanlal Ojha which is also not correct. He submits that Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Late Gunvant Rai Ojha. He submits that this Court by the judgment dated 12th April, 2023, Anup Ojha was added as substituted defendant no.4 in the suit but Anup Ojha cannot be substituted in place of defendant no.4 as he is not the son of Maya Devi Ojha. 4. Mr. Ghosh submits that though this Court by an order dated 9th October, 2023 has made some clarifications but the said clarifications has not completely clarified the issue and thus the order dated 12th April, 2023 is required to be reviewed. 5. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Lily Thomas and Others Vs. Union of India & Others, (2000) 6 SCC 224 and submits that if the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Ghosh submits that while passing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has not considered the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen dated 3rd December, 2018 wherein the application filed by Shri Bhaskar Ojha for impleading him as party to the suit was dismissed. He submits that the order dated 3th December, 2018 became final and binding upon all the parties and would operate as res judicata. 7. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the Judgment in the case of Dr. Shah Faesal and Another Vs. Union of India & Another, (2020) 4 SCC 1 and submits that it is settled principle of law that the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength. 8. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Sultan Said Ibrahim Vs. Prakasan and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218 and submits that the principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding as well. 9. Mr. Sakya Sen, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant nos. 2 and 4 submits that Anup Ojha never claimed to be the son of Maya Devi Ojha. In the application being G.A. No. 21 of 2022, Anup Ojha clearly stated that he is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha who was the Chairman of the Board from 1990 to 1995. 10. Mr. Sen submits that in all pleadings, the contention of Anup Ojha was that as per Terms of Settlement, consent order was passed in the year 1989 and the same was modified in the year 1992 and his father Late Chimanlal Ojha was the Member of the Board and Chairman as well. Being the legal heir of Chimanlal Ojha, he should be inducted unto the Board after adding him as party defendant in the suit. He submits that the defendants have never described Mr. Anup Ojha as son of Maya Devi Ojha. 11. Mr. Sen submits that the order dated 3rd December, 2018 was disclosed and marked as Annexure “B” and annexed at page 11 of Affidavit-in- reply. He submits that pleadings were also made in paragraph 5 (vii). He submits that the defendants have never described Mr. Anup Ojha as son of Maya Devi Ojha. 11. Mr. Sen submits that the order dated 3rd December, 2018 was disclosed and marked as Annexure “B” and annexed at page 11 of Affidavit-in- reply. He submits that pleadings were also made in paragraph 5 (vii). He submits that when the earlier petition was filed, there were Board members and over and above the Board members, there were Special Officers appointed, due to which the Hon’ble Judge has not entertained the prayer of Bhaskar Ojha to be appointed as Board member. 12. Mr. Sen submits that Bhaskar Ojha filed an application being G.A. No.21 of 2022 for impleading him as defendant in the suit as well as in the Interim Board of Management due to change in circumstances. He submits that there was only one living Board member who is the legal heir of Late Amritlal Ojha and all the other Board members had expired and the Special Officer was solely running the affairs of the company at his own whims and will for which the necessity of induction of Bhaskar Ojha in place of his father Promod Rai Ojha as defendant no.2 in the suit and accordingly, he has made an application. 13. Mr. Sen submits that in the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court in several paragraphs categorically stated that Anup Ojha is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha and Bhaskar Ojha is the son of Late Pramod Rai Ojha. 14. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 3, it was wrongly recorded that “the mother of petitioner no.1 was defendant no.4” but after her death “the name of the mother of petitioner no.1 was deleted”. 15. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 5, it is wrongly recorded that “after the death of Chimanlal Ojha, his wife, Maya Devi Ojha, became one of the members of the Interim Board of Management, and was also made defendant no. 4 in the present suit”. 16. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 7, it was wrongly recorded that “after the death of father of petitioner no.1, the mother was inducted as member of the Board and also made defendant in the instant suit”. 17. Mr. 4 in the present suit”. 16. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 7, it was wrongly recorded that “after the death of father of petitioner no.1, the mother was inducted as member of the Board and also made defendant in the instant suit”. 17. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 8, it was wrongly recorded that “as petitioners were substituted as defendant no.2 and 4 in the suit, and thus the petitioners shall be inducted as members of Interim Board of Management in place of Pramod Rai Ojha and Smt. Maya Devi Ojha”. 18. Mr. Sen submits that name of Maya Devi Ojha came mistakenly as the mother of Anup Ojha, though Anup Ojha is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha. Maya Devi Ojha was the wife of Gunvant Rai Ojha. Both Chimanlal Ojha and Gunvant Rai Ojha, were the members of the Interim Board as per Terms of Settlement of 1989 and 1992. He submits that the induction do not start from Maya Devi Ojha, but from the Board Members of 1989 and 1992. He submits that the said mistakes are curable and corrected by an order dated 9th October, 2023 and review is not needed. 19. Mr. Sen relied upon the judgment in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 320 and submits that review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Sen also relied upon the judgment in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and Another Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others, (2023) 9 SCC 757 . 20. Mr. Sen submits that the statements made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of G.A. No. 1 of 2024 in RVWO are totally false. He submits that the order dated 12th April, 2023, was passed in presence of all parties and not behind back as falsely alleged by the petitioners. He submits that from the day one, the petitioners were aware of the judgment dated 12th April, 2023. Mr. Sen in support of his submission relied upon the Judgment in the case of Binod Bihari Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. He submits that from the day one, the petitioners were aware of the judgment dated 12th April, 2023. Mr. Sen in support of his submission relied upon the Judgment in the case of Binod Bihari Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 572 and submitted that in the said case, the appellant has taken a false stand on the question of receipt of the signed copy of the award to get rid of the bar of limitation, should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his part by rejecting the plea of limitation raised by the respondent. 21. The petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay of 329 days in preferring the Review Application. At the time of hearing, other applications along with G.A. No. 21 of 2022, the present Advocate was not conducting the case on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners and when the petitioners have contacted the present Advocate, on perusal of record, they finds that in the order dated 12th April, 2023, the description of Anup Ojha as son of Maya Devi Ojha is mentioned and it was also found that on previous occasion, Bhaskar Ojha has filed an application for impleading him as party to the suit but the same was rejected by an order dated 3rd December, 2018 and this Court while passing the order dated 12th April, 2023 has not considered the said order and allowed Bhaskar Ojha to be party to the suit and also to be one of the member of the Interim Board of Management. 22. Mr. Sen desist the application for condoning delay and submitted that the averments made in the application are false but the fact remains that the present Advocates were not on record. The plaintiffs have subsequently engaged the present Advocates and after going through the papers and orders, the Learned Advocates have come to know that in the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has described Anup Ojha as son of Maya Devi Ojha in several paragraphs of the order and has also not considered the order dated 3rd December, 2018 wherein on previous occasion, the application of Bhaskar Ojha was rejected for impleading him as party to the suit. 23. 23. Considering the above, this Court finds that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for not filing Review Application within prescribed time and the Review Application to be heard on merit, thus the delay of 329 days in filing the Review Application is allowed. 24. Mr. Anup Ojha and Mr. Bhaskar Ojha have jointly filed an application being G.A. No. 21 of 2022, praying for the following reliefs: a) Direct Mr. Anup Ojha, being the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha and Mr. Bhaskar Ojha, son of Late Promod Rai Ojha representing each of their branches to be inducted in the Interim Board of Management after adding them first as party defendants in the instant administrative suit; b) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer above; c) Pass such further and other order and/or orders and direction and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit proper. 25. All parties participated at the time of hearing of the application being G.A. No. 21 of 2022 and by an order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court disposed of the said application by substituting Bhaskar Ojha and Anup Ojha as defendant nos. 2 and 4 in the suit and also inducting them as members of the Interim Board of Management in place of Pramode Rai Ojha and Maya Devi Ojha. 26. The 1st contention raised by the plaintiffs of the suit/petitioners in the present application is that this Court in the order dated 12th April, 2023, described Anup Ojha as son of Maya Devi Ojha but he is not the son of Maya Devi Ojha. He is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha. This Court considered the submissions of Mr. Rupak Ghosh and perused the order dated 12th April, 2023 and found that this Court has described Maya Devi Ojha as mother of Anup Ojha which is not correct. Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Gunvant Rai Ojha. In place of Maya Devi Ojha, the name of the father of Anup Ojha is to be recorded as Chimanlal Ojha. 27. Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Gunvant Rai Ojha. In place of Maya Devi Ojha, the name of the father of Anup Ojha is to be recorded as Chimanlal Ojha. 27. In page 6, paragraph 2 of the order dated 12th April, 2023, it is recorded as: “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.” The said paragraph is to be read as: “In the present suit, the father of the petitioner no.2 was the defendant no.2 and father of the petitioner no.1 was Chimanlal Ojha.” 28. In page 6, paragraph 4 in sixth line of the order dated 12th April, 2023, it is recorded as: “After the death of Chimman Lal Ojha” The same is to be read as: “After the death of Gunwant Rai Ojha.” 29. In page 7, paragraph, 2 line nos. 3 and 4, it is recorded as : “after the death of the father of the petitioner no.1, the mother was inducted” The same is to be read as : “after the death of Gunwant Rai Ojha, his wife was inducted” 30. In page 7, paragraph 3 last line, it is recorded as: “and Smt. Maya Devi Ojha” The same is to be read as: “and Chimman Lal Ojha”. Instead of Smt. Maya Devi Ojha. 31. By an order dated 9th October, 2023, this Court has clarified that Promod Rai Ojha died and in his place, his son Bhaskar Ojha has been substituted. The defendant no.4, namely, Maya Devi Ojha died but she had no legal heirs. One Anup Ojha was also brought on record being the legal heir of Chimanlal Ojha. Though this Court by an order dated 9th October, 2023 has clarified that Anup Ojha is son of Chimanlal Ojha but after perusing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court finds that in several paragraphs, the description of Anup Ojha is not correct. 32. The second contention raised by the plaintiffs/petitioners is that Mr. Though this Court by an order dated 9th October, 2023 has clarified that Anup Ojha is son of Chimanlal Ojha but after perusing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court finds that in several paragraphs, the description of Anup Ojha is not correct. 32. The second contention raised by the plaintiffs/petitioners is that Mr. Bhaskar Ojha on previous occasion, has filed an application for impleading him as party to the suit but the same was rejected by this Court by an order dated 3rd December, 2018, thus the application filed by Bhaskar Ojha is barred by res judicata. The order dated 3rd December, 2018, passed in G.A. No. 3117 of 2018 in C.S. No. 159 of 2010 read as follows: “The Court : This is an application by one Bhaskar Ojha, son of Promod Ojha for impleading him as a party in the suit. The original suit was filed against the defendant no.1 and the persons in management. The allegation was that the interim board of management of which the father of the applicant was one of the members, were mismanaging the affairs of the defendant no.1 and it is in that capacity the defendant no.2 was made a party. In the suit the principal prayer is that the interim board of management constituted on the basis of the terms of settlement is void and/or nullity. Recently, the interim board of management has been reconstituted. The applicant is not in the interim board of management. There are no allegations against the present petitioner. There is also no possibility of applicant suffering any adverse order in the suit. On such consideration, this application fails. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 33. When the order dated 3rd December, 2018, was passed at that time Girish Chandra Ojha, Maya Devi Ojha, Navin Chandra Ojha and Sriram Amritlal Ojha were the surviving members of the Interim Board. This Court has not allowed the prayer of Bhaskar Ojha on the pretext that recently Interim Board of Management was constituted and Bhaskar Ojha was not in the Interim Board of Management. This Court also found that there is no allegation against the applicant and there is no possibility of applicant suffering any adverse order in the suit. This Court has not allowed the prayer of Bhaskar Ojha on the pretext that recently Interim Board of Management was constituted and Bhaskar Ojha was not in the Interim Board of Management. This Court also found that there is no allegation against the applicant and there is no possibility of applicant suffering any adverse order in the suit. Before the order dated 3rd December, 2018, Maya Devi Ojha expired in the year 2013, Navin Chandra Ojha expired in the year 2021 and it is also that Whether Girish Chandra Ojha expired on 9th June, 2016 at Brussels, Belgium or not, as G.A. No. 26 of 2023 is pending and the plaintiffs have not confirmed the death of Girish Ojha. Upon death of four members of Interim Board of Management, Sriram Amritlal Ojha was alone surviving member of the Interim Board of Management prior to the order dated 12th April, 2023. 34. Anup Ojha, Son of Late Chimanlal Ojha and Bhaskar Ojha, Son of Late Promod Rai Ojha have filed their joint application being G.A. No. 21 of 2022 for induction of their names in the plaint and adding them in the Interim Board of Management. One Mukesh Keshavlal Ojha, son of Late Keshavlal Ojha filed an application being G.A. No. 22 of 2022 praying for inducting him as one of the member of the Interim Board of Management. The plaintiffs, namely, Aloka Ojha and Meera Seal have filed an application being G.A. No. 25 of 2023 praying for inducting of Scheme for the Management and Administration of the affairs of the defendant no.1 Company and allied prayers. All applications were disposed of by separate orders dated 12th April, 2023 wherein this Court allowed the prayer of Anup Ojha and Bhaskar Ojha. Prayer made in G.A. No. 22 of 2022 by Mukesh Keshavlal Ojha was dismissed and the prayer of Aloka Ojha and Meera Seal was allowed to the extent that any one of them be made as member of the Interim Board of Management. 35. In the case of Dr. Shah Faesal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “23. This brings us to the question, as to whether a ruling of a coordinate Bench binds subsequent coordinate Benches. It is now a settled principle of law that the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength. Shah Faesal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “23. This brings us to the question, as to whether a ruling of a coordinate Bench binds subsequent coordinate Benches. It is now a settled principle of law that the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength. The aforesaid view is reinforced in the National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi wherein this Court held that: 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.” In the case of Sulthan Said Ibrahim (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “53. The High Court, in its impugned order, held the application of the appellant under Order I Rule 10 to be barred by res judicata, and thus not maintainable on that ground. We find no infirmity in the said observation made by the High Court. This Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787 observed that the principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding as well. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “18. It is now well settled that principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. 19. In Y.B. Patil (1976) 4 SCC 66 , it was held: "4……….. It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding." 21. Yet again in Hope Plantations Ltd. (1999) 5 SCC 590 this Court laid down the law in the following terms: 17.... Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding." 21. Yet again in Hope Plantations Ltd. (1999) 5 SCC 590 this Court laid down the law in the following terms: 17.... One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice.” 36. In the year 2018, Bhaskar Ojha had filed an application being G.A. No.3117 of 2018 in C.S. No. 159 of 2010 praying for impleading him as party in the suit. This Court by an order dated 3rd December, 2018, rejected the prayer of Bhaskar Ojha. The said order is not challenged and attained its finality. This Court also noted that Bhaskar Ojha filed the said application after the death of his father Promod Rai Ojha. Though he has filed an application along with Anup Ojha for impleading him as party to the suit and also in the Interim Board of Management but has not prayed for modification of the order dated 3rd December, 2018 wherein his prayer for impleading him as party to the suit was dismissed. 37. In paragraph 14 of G.A. No. 21 of 2022, it was mentioned that Bhaskar Ojha had made an earlier application and was also faced with objection from the senior members of the family and he has filed the application on the ground of parity that the two daughters of the original plaintiff have been made party to the suit as substituted plaintiff. 38. Considering the above, this Court finds that by an order dated 3rd December, 2018, this Court already rejected the application filed by Mr. Bhaskar Ojha for impleading him as party to the suit and the said order reached its finality. Sitting in the Coordinate Jurisdiction, it would not be proper for this Court to ignore the order dated 3rd December, 2018 and to allow Bhaskar Ojha to be a party to the suit. While passing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has not taken into consideration of the order dated 3rd December, 2018 and allowed Mr. Sitting in the Coordinate Jurisdiction, it would not be proper for this Court to ignore the order dated 3rd December, 2018 and to allow Bhaskar Ojha to be a party to the suit. While passing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has not taken into consideration of the order dated 3rd December, 2018 and allowed Mr. Bharskar Ojha be a party to the suit. 39. In the case of Lily Thomas and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 224 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.” 40. This Court has the Power of Review, but it must be exercised within the frame work of Section 114, read with Order XLVII, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus, a Review Petition is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of review petition or could not be produced by him when the order was passed, (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, (iii) for any other sufficient reason. A judgment/order can be reviewed if there is mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The mistake or error must be apparent on the face of the record and not the one which is required to be searched out. A judgment/order can be reviewed if there is mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The mistake or error must be apparent on the face of the record and not the one which is required to be searched out. In the present case there are mistakes and errors appearing on the face the judgement/order dated 12th April, 2023. In the case of Lily Thomas (supra), the words “any other sufficient reason appearing in order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC” means “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. This Court finds that the order dated 12th April, 2023 had within the scope and ambit of the above parameters. 41. In the present case, this Court finds that while passing an order dated12th April, 2023 has not considered the order dated 3rd December, 2018 wherein this Court has rejected the application filed by Bhaskar Ojha. Mr. Bhaskar Ojha filed the said application being GA No. 3117 of 2018 after the death of his father and this Court while passing the order dated 3rd December, 2018, taken notice of the same but refused to implead him as party to the suit. In the judgement dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has recorded wrong fact that Anup Ojha is the son of Maya Devi Ojha in several paragraphs. Both errors are appearing on the face of the judgment dated 12th April, 2023. 42. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, this Court finds that the order dated 12th April, 2023 passed in G.A. No. 21 of 2022 is required to be reviewed and is accordingly reviewed in the following manner: “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. 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. 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. 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. J.N. Roy, Bar-at Law the outgoing Chairman is discharged from further acting as of the company. 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 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 passed 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 judgement on the usual undertaking. The Advocate for the respondent prayed for stay of the order which is refused.” 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 dated10th 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; n) Further and other reliefs.” 43. In the present suit, the father of the petitioner no.2 was the defendant no. 2. After the death of defendant no. 2, the petitioner no.2 filed an application being G.A. No. 3117 of 2018 for impleading him as party to the suit but this Court by an order dated 3rd December, 2018 refused the prayer of the petitioner no.2 and, the name of the defendant no. 2, i.e. Promod Rai Ojha is deleted. 44. The shares of the company are primarily held by the legal representatives of Late Amrit Lal Ojha. The father of the petitioners Pramode Rai Ojha and Chimanlal Ojha (both since deceased), were shareholders of the respondent company. 45. 2, i.e. Promod Rai Ojha is deleted. 44. The shares of the company are primarily held by the legal representatives of Late Amrit Lal Ojha. The father of the petitioners Pramode Rai Ojha and Chimanlal Ojha (both since deceased), were shareholders of the respondent company. 45. 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 till their death. The father of the petitioners were the members of the Interim Board of Management. After the death of Gunvant Rai Ojha, his wife Maya Devi Ojha became one of the members of the Interim Board of Management and was also made the defendant no.4 in the present suit. After the death of Maya Devi Ojha, her name is deleted from the suit. 46. 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 the members of the Interim Board of Management as since beginning the father of the petitioners was the members of the Interim Board of Management. 47. Admittedly, the father of the petitioners were the shareholder of the respondent no.1 Company and were also the member of the Interim Board of Management of the company. After the death of Gunwant Rai Ojha, the wife, namely, Maya Devi Ojha was inducted as member of the Interim Board of Management and also made defendant in the suit. 48. As regard to impleading the name of the petitioner no. 2, namely, Bhaskar Ojha in the suit and in the Interim Board of Management, this Court finds that on previous occasion, he has filed an application before this Court being G.A. No. 3117 of 2018 and by an order dated 3rd December, 2018, the application of Bhaskar Ojha was dismissed and the said order is not challenged and attained its finality, thus this Court is not inclined to implead Bhaskar Ojha as party to the suit and also to be the one of the members of Interim Board of Management. As regard to the petitioner no. 1, namely, Anup Ojha, he shall be added as the defendant no. As regard to the petitioner no. 1, namely, Anup Ojha, he shall be added as the defendant no. 6 and shall also be inducted as members of the Interim Board of Management of the defendant no.1 Company in place of Chimanlal Ojha. 49. The department is directed to amend the cause title of the suit in terms of this order within a period of two weeks from date. 50. R.V.W.O. No. 19 of 2024 is allowed. G.A. No. 1 of 2024 and G.A. No. 2 of 2024 are accordingly disposed of.