2010 PLP 422 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 22-12-2006 Muhammad Maalik deceased respondent (now represented by his LRs) filed a suit against respondent No.9. A sale-deed allegedly got registered on 24-7-2004 regarding the suit house in favour of the said respondent No.9 was questioned. Along with the suit an application was filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the said respondent from interfering with possession of the said plaintiff or to alienate the land. The suit as well as the application was resisted by respondent No.9. Vide order dated 16-9-2008 the learned trial Court dismissed the application. A first appeal was filed wherein the respondent No.9 made a statement that he will be having no objection if a stay is granted to the extent of possession. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed and the said respondent was restrained from interfering with possession of the plaintiff. This was done vide order dated 21-2-2009 by a learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is result of fraud and misrepresentation inasmuch as the petitioner had purchased the suit house from respondent No.9 vide registered sale-deed dated 18-9-2008 and as such he had no right to make the said statement. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that they being admittedly in possession of the house, the temporary injunction even otherwise was correctly granted.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Although the petitioner has apparently purchased the house from respondent No.9 vide registered document dated 18-9-2008 i.e. after the institution of the suit yet he has not taken any steps to get himself impleaded as a party. On my query learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the respondents are in possession of the house. To my mind on the said grounds the impugned order cannot be interfered with because the petitioner would be bound by the result of the suit being a transferee pendente lite. How were he may file an application either to be substituted for respondent No.9 or to be added as a party to the suit and to defend the same. So far as the impugned order is concerned, I have noted that the prayer made by the respondents was also that the respondent No.9 should not interfere with the possession otherwise than in due process of law whereas the impugned order purports to grant a blanket injunction. This being a civil revision, I hereby modify the impugned order to the extent that the respondents/plaintiffs in the case shall not be dispossessed from the suit house otherwise than in due course of law. The civil revision is accordingly disposed of without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./A-333/L Order Accordingly.