- (1.) Heard the parties. Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff who instituted special suit No. 57 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Panvel for the specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain land bearing plot No. 44. As per agreement dated 9.3.2011, respondent no.1 is the vendor. From the facts available on record, it appears that respondent no.1 sold the property allegedly in violation of the agreement, in favour of respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 on 3.10.2011. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit on 2nd February, 2012 and obtained an order of a status quo on 29th February, 2012. Thereafter as per the plaintiff's case respondent Nos. 6 to 8 created interest of third parties in the same property through registered agreements in the month of April, 2012. The appellant as plaintiff made an application to the trial court to implead the proposed purchasers having registered agreement of sale in their favour as defendant. This application was rejected by the trial court and that order was challenged before the High Court but without success as appears from the Order under appeal dated 19.08.2014 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2359 of 2014.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when there was an order of status quo by the trial court, the respondent nos. 6 to 8 clearly acted contrary to such order by entering into subsequent agreement for sale of the suit property in favour of ten persons and in such circumstances prayer to implead such ten persons should have been allowed when the prayer was made by the appellant-plaintiff who is dominus litus. He placed reliance upon a judgment by three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors., 2005(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 691 : (2005) 6 SCC 733 .;