*1* s.2061.97.21 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2061 OF 1997 Bhawarlal Manchalal Jain. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Reliance Industries Ltd. and others. ..Defendants .......... Mr.Q.M.Ashfaq i/b Pious Law Associates, for the Plaintiff. Mr.Vipul Shukla, for the Defendant No.1. Ms.S.J.Joshi, for the Defendant No.4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd December, 2010. P.C. 1 Mr.Ashfaq, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, in all fairness, states that although directions issued on 15.02.2010 have been construed as enabling the parties to file their affidavits of documents and evidence, inadvertently the issues remained to be framed although the drafts were exchanged. 2 This fact is confirmed by the contesting Defendant No.1 who is represented by Mr.Vipul Shukla. In fact the issues have to be drawn between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 as it is the contesting Defendant. Although the Written Statement is filed by the Defendant No. 4, no reliefs are sought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.4. 3 In such circumstances, on perusal of the pleadings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, the following issues arise for consideration:- (1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is the purchaser of the 1000 suit shares more particularly numbered in the *2* s.2061.97.21 plaint? (2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled for direction to the Defendant No.1 for issuing the duplicate 1000 suit shares in lieu of the share numbers mentioned in the plaint together with benefits thereunder? (3) Whether the Defendant No.1 proves that there are lawful impediments in issuing the duplicates of 1000 suit shares and the accrued benefits thereunder? (4) Whether the Defendant No.1 proves that he is justified by withholding the issuing of duplicate shares and transferring them in the name of Plaintiff? (5) What order and costs? 4 Mr.Shukla, learned counsel for the Defendant No.1, states that he has received the copies of documents which are relied upon by the Plaintiff and tendered together with the affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief of the Plaintiff dated 26.04.2010. Therefore, each of the documents which are shown at Sr.No.1 to 10 shall be marked as P-1 to P-10. Mr.Shukla confirms receipt of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief. 5 Mr.Shukla states that the company only wants to ensure that when it issues duplicate share it is issued only to the person who is entitled for the same. Therefore, he does not want to cross-examine the Plaintiff. 6 In such circumstances, when none other Defendants are contesting the suit or claim of the Plaintiff and there is no Written Statement also of these Defendants on record and none of them are *3* s.2061.97.21 present to cross examine the Plaintiff, Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the Defendant No.4, states that in the light of clarification that no relief is claimed against the Defendant No.4, she does not desire to cross-examine the Plaintiff. 7 It is clear that the Plaintiff has proved his case and all statements in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief have gone uncontroverted and the affidavit of the Plaintiff in lieu of examination-in- examination confirms the statements in plaint and the contents of the documents compiled in the compilation. Therefore, the suit is decreed as prayed. Refund of the Court fees as per rules. The Advocate costs to be computed as per rules. The decree may be drawn in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1 in terms of the prayers of plaint. In other words, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the plaint and the Company namely the Defendant No.1 shall issue duplicate shares with all benefits accruing in the intervening period in favour of the Plaintiff. Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative. Issue Nos.3 and 4 are answered in the Negative. 8 The suit is, accordingly, decreed. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)