By means of this writ petition the petitioners have come up to this Court challenging the order passed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for the impleadment of respondents no.4 and 5 as defendants.
The petitioners claim that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondents no.1 and 2 being Suit No. 374 of 2011. In the said suit an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. The said application remained pending.
It is submitted that in the meantime, the respondents-plaintiffs no.1 and 2 transferred the suit property in favour of respondents no.4 and 5 and on the strength of such a transfer through a sale deed respondents no.4 and 5 sought impleadment in the said suit.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits such a transfer without the permission of the court.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The said suit was filed for injunction against the petitioners and the plaintiffs have now transferred the suit property in favour of respondents no.4 and 5, who have been impleaded. It is not disputed that upon such transfer the respondents no.4 and 5 would have the right to institute a fresh suit against the plaintiffs. As such, at this juncture there is no question of grant of interim prayer in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the stay application is rejected.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date for which learned counsel for the petitioners will take steps within a week.
The respondents may file counter affidavit within one month.
List thereafter.
Order Date :- 21.11.2014 SKM