Court dismisses abatement application due to plaintiff's liquidation, allows amendment, and directs sale of Met Coke.

The court dismissed the application for abatement of the suit due to the plaintiff's liquidation, noting the active participation of the liquidator in the proceedings. It allowed the amendment to include the liquidator in the records and directed the Receiver to proceed with the sale of 10,000 Metric Tons of Met Coke in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines. The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in insolvency cases and ensured that the plaintiff's liquidation status did not impede the ongoing litigation and sale process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of the suit due to the plaintiff's liquidation.
2. Amendment of the plaint to include the liquidator as a party.
3. Sale of 10,000 Metric Tons of Met Coke.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Abatement of the suit due to the plaintiff's liquidation
The primary issue revolves around whether the suit should abate due to the plaintiff company being declared insolvent and going into liquidation. The defendant no. 2 argued that the suit has abated as the liquidator has declined, refused, and/or neglected to pursue the litigation, citing Order 22 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant no. 2 sought the dismissal of the suit and possession of the Met Coke.

The court, however, noted that Order 22 Rule 8 clearly states that a suit shall not abate upon the insolvency of the plaintiff unless the liquidator declines to continue the suit. The court observed that the liquidator had been actively participating in the suit, including attending meetings with the Special Officer and appearing before the court. Therefore, the court concluded that the liquidator's failure to formally apply for substitution in the suit records did not amount to a refusal to continue the suit. The court emphasized that the liquidator's actions demonstrated a clear intent to protect the plaintiff's interests, thus the suit could not be considered abated.

Issue 2: Amendment of the plaint to include the liquidator as a party
The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to bring the liquidator on record to represent the company in liquidation. The court acknowledged that the liquidator had assured the court of such an application, albeit belatedly. Given that the liquidator had been actively involved in the proceedings, the court found it appropriate to allow the amendment of the plaint to formally include the liquidator. The court noted that this was a technical requirement and did not impact the substance of the liquidator’s involvement in the case.

Issue 3: Sale of 10,000 Metric Tons of Met Coke
The court addressed the ongoing issue of the sale of 10,000 Metric Tons of Met Coke, which had been subject to various orders and appeals. Initially, the court had allowed the sale to secure the claim of the defendant no. 2, appointing a Special Officer to oversee the process. The Supreme Court later directed a fresh valuation and public notice for the sale, specifying that the reserve price should be exclusive of taxes.

The plaintiff's liquidation complicated the sale process, with the liquidator indicating an inability to share costs due to lack of funds. Despite these challenges, the court directed the Receiver to proceed with the sale in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines, dismissing the defendant no. 2's application for abatement and allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application seeking abatement of the suit and allowed the amendment to include the liquidator in the records. It directed the Receiver to continue with the sale of the Met Coke as per the Supreme Court's instructions, ensuring that the liquidation status of the plaintiff did not hinder the ongoing litigation and sale process. The court's decision emphasized the active role of the liquidator and the importance of procedural compliance in insolvency cases.

---