C MAHESH KUMAR Vs. BHAGYAVATHI NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated 21.02.2015 on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.58/2013 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhadravathi.

(2.) The petitioner is plaintiff, respondent No.1 is defendant and respondent Nos.2 & 3 are defendant Nos.2 & 3 impleaded pursuant to the impugned order under challenge.

(3.) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.58/2013 for specific performance of agreement dated 22.11.2012 executed by respondent No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property bearing new No.316, old No.270-203 situated at ward No.2, B.H.Road, Bhadravathi. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had also filed I.A. under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The trial Court had granted an adinterim order of injunction dated 08.11.2013 not to alienate the suit schedule property against the defendant. In spite of said injunction, the defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of respondents/defendant Nos.2 and 3 under sale deed dated 002.2014. The purchasers respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed I.A.No.3 under order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record as additional defendant Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that they are the bona-fide purchasers of the suit schedule property and an interest has been created in favour of them during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff resisted the said application by filing objection contending that they are not necessary parties to the suit wherein specific performance of agreement dated 22.11.2012 is sought. Further it is contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had clear and complete knowledge of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant and they cannot be considered as bona-fide purchasers. The trial Court, allowed I.A.No.3 and permitted respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to come on record as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. The said order of allowing I.A.No.3 is impugned in this writ petition.