PARAMJIT SINGH NIJJAR Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS , Paramjit Singh Nijjar and two others had filed a suit against the defendants wherein specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.09.2005 was claimed. The respondents -defendants -owners during pendency of the suit were venturing to dispose of the property in dispute. To avoid intervention of third party rights during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was filed by the plaintiffs but before the said application was decided, apprehended transfer to create third party rights was made by the respondents -owners in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 (herein), fresh application was moved seeking injunction against the subsequent vendees for restraining them from further alienation of the property at their end so as to avoid creation of third party interest therein. This application was allowed on 06.04.2013. Subsequent vendees against whom the said order was made went in appeal wherein holding that the second application for ad -interim injunction was not maintainable, terming order of 06.04.2013 of the trial court to be perverse and against the law, setting aside the same, the application was dismissed, allowing the appeal with costs. It is against this order of 06.11.2013 of the appellate authority that present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners -plaintiffs.

(2.) IT is claimed that the appellate authority misconstrued the facts as also attending circumstances and passed the impugned order in derogation of the attending circumstances. It is claimed that impugned order not only runs contrary to the facts and circumstances but also runs divergent with the earlier order of 11.04.2012 (Annexure P -7) of the appellate authority itself, wherein liberty had been granted to the petitioners -plaintiffs to pursue their application dated 09.10.2010 (Annexure P -6) against defendants No. 3 to 5 (now respondents No. 1 to 3 in the petition herein). It is claimed that observations of the appellate authority while passing the impugned order that filing of subsequent application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 was barred by res -judicata, also is wrong.

(3.) HEARING has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the grounds of the revision and impugned orders as also while appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.