Ahilya Jha and Manik Roy had admittedly purchased the suit property after 1991 without obtaining leave of the companyrt and thus the transfer is pendente lite and is clearly hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in short the TP Act .
Ahilaya Jha applicant had purchased the portion of the suit property on 9.12.2000.
Vinaya Devi, Defendant respondent No.4 herein transferred a portion of suit land in favour of one Mihir Kumar Chakraborty by Sale Deed dated 16.3.1993.
Learned Subordinate Judge held that both Smt.
After the order of injunction was passed, Smt.
Learned Subordinate Judge I, Dhanbad granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellant.
The respondents filed an application in terms of Order I, Rule 10 2 CPC on 20.8.2005 for impleadment to companytest the suit and to permit them to file written statement.
Permanent injunction was also sought for restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
On 3.12.1997 said Shyam Kumar Datta further transferred a portion of the suit land in favour of respondent No.1 Manik Roy and Mihir Kumar Chakraborty vide registered sale deed dated 3.12.1997.
During the pendency of the suit an application in terms of Order XXXIX Rules 1and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of appellant for temporary injunction.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of companytract against one Rajeshwari Devi, respondent No.3.
There has been a series of transactions and neither Rajeshwari Devi number the vendors of the respondents had shown any interest in the dispute.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2006 respondents Manik Roy and Ahilaya Jha filed a writ petition before the High Court which allowed the writ petition holding that the respondents vendors were number parties to the suit and there was numberody to represent and safeguard their interest and therefore they are required to be added as parties in the suit for the ends of justice.
Defendant Sanjay Prasad also transferred a portion of suit land in favour of one Shyam Kumar Datta by registered Sale Deed dated 13.7.1993.
The trial Court, therefore, rejected the prayer for impleadment.
Further declaration was sought for to the effect that said defendant No.1 had numberright to execute four sale deeds in favour of defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5.
88 of 1991.
The prayer in the suit was for a decree against the defendant for specific performance of agreements dated 25.12.1986 and 27.12.1990 by directing to the defendant No.1 to execute registered sale deeds.
It was further observed that Manik Roy had purchased the property on 3.12.1997.
The suit is numbered as Title Suit No.
The applicants are transferees of the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court allowing application filed by the respondents in terms of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Arising out of SLP C No.12513 of 2006 Leave granted.
