GOMTI Vs. PURSHOTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which the appeal filed by the applicant-respondents against the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his application under Order 21 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed.

(2.) THE applicant-respondents moved an application under Order 21 Rule 10 CPC for being substituted in place of defendant-Geeta in view of the purchase of the property vide registered sale-deed No. 476 dated 4.1.2001. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by observing as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the learned lower Appellate Court was in error while placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another (supra) as the same was not applicable to the facts of the present case. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that by way of order dated 4.1.2001, a restraint order was passed against defendant No. 1 from alienating the property in dispute. It may be mentioned here that the suit was filed by the appellants on 16.12.2000 whereas (wherein ?) defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had appeared and thus, they were aware of the pendency of the suit as well as application for injunction. In spite of stay order, the sale deed has been executed and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh, 1995(3) RRR 560 : 1996(3) LJR 818 (SC), the application moved by the applicant-respondents under Order 21 Rule 10 CPC could not have been allowed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that alienation in violation of restraint order cannot give a right to the party to contest the suit as the alienation/assignment would be illegal.