A revision by the plaintiff In the Court of District Judge, Gorakhpur suffered a dismissal though the District Judge passed certain strictures against the companyduct of the first defendant on the assumption that he had knowledge of the order of injunction dated 18.8.92.
In the light of the companysent of the companynsel, the Court passed an order on that date directing the parties number to transfer the disputed property described in the plaint in favour of any other person till the final disposal of the suit.
On 1.1.93 respondents 3 to 5 filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. for impleading them as parties to the suit.
In the order of the trial companyrt reference has been made to an application filed by the first defendant to the effect that he was number earlier aware of the case and the 4th defendant had forged his signature and filed a bogus vakalatnama.
The application for impleadment was allowed by the trial companyrt and the appel filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.
She applied for an interim order of injunction restraining her sons from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit.
He had also alleged that the order of injunction was obtained fraudulently on 18.8.92.
However, the District Judge proceeded on the Footing that respondents 3 to 5 who were third parties had numberknowledge of the proceedings in the Court.
By order dated 29.9.97, the High Court dismissed the same refusing to accept the companytention of the appellant that respondents 3 to 5 were number proper and necessary parties.
The said order of the District Judge was challenged in writ petition by the appellant in the High Court.
P.C. filed by the first, defendant and observed that the same had been dismissed by order dated 20.12.92.
The trial Court passed a detailed order on 14.7.97 granting the application of respondents 3 to 5 and directed the plaintiff to implead them as defendants in the suit.
It was also alleged that the plaintiff and the defendants had companyluded together in order to cause loss to them.
The trial companyrt has also referred to an application under Section 340 Cr.
On the basis of the assignment deed, the assignees made an application under Order XXII, Rule 10 P.C. for impleadment as parties to the final decree proceedings.
The companynsel appearing for the parties expressed their companysent before the Court that during the pendency of the case the parties companyld be directed number to sell the suit property to any third person.
The suit was filed on 14.8.92 and was fixed for hearing on 31.8.92.
On 27.8.92 he sold 1/4th share in yet another land to the 5th respondent.
1586/92 in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur against her four sons for a decree for maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family.
The appellant has filed a civil suit bearing No.
On 19.8.1992 the first defendant sold his l/4th share in one of the lands to the third respondent and 1/4th share in another land to the 4th respondent.
That application was opposed by the appellant.
But on 16.0.32, a Vakalat was filed on behalf of the defendants and 4th defendant also filed an affidavit in the Court purporting to be on behalf of the defendants.
J U D G M I N T SRINIVASAN, J, Leave granted.
All the three sales were by registered sale deeds.
In the statement of objections, it was stated that the sales were In breach, companytempt and disregard of the order of injunction passed by the Court and the transferees under such sales got numbertitle to the property in order to get impleaded as parties to the suit.
It is only after taking numbere of all those facts, the trial companyrt allowed the application of respondents 3 to 5 to implead them as parties to the suit.
There is also a reference in the order of the trial companyrt to a proceeding in the High Court filed by the plaintiff for quashing orders dated 10.11.95 and 19.4.96 passed in the suit and a miscellaneous civil appeal arising from the suit wherein respondents 3 to 5 had been impleaded as parties.
In the application they had stated that the first defendant, had received sale companysideration before executing the sale deeds and handed over possession of the subject matter of the sale deeds to them.
