A.K. Banerji, J. - (1.) This revision is directed J against the orders dated 29.3.1993 passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad by which the said Court rejected the applications filed by the applicants for their impleadment as defendants in Suit No. 1010 of 1989 and also for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from demolishing the constructions made by the applicants.
(2.) The relevant facts are that Suit No. 1010 of 1989 was filed by Vidya Matri Mandir, Ghaziabad against the defendants Rajendra Nath and Satpal Singh for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the said defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession use and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. The plaintiff had alleged in the suit that the land in dispute was a joint family property in which defendant No. 1, Rajendra Nath, had 1/6th share. On account of a family settlement, the plaintiff, Vidya Matri Mandir (hereinafter referred to as the Society) had paid the price of the 1/6th share to the defendant No. 1 and had come in possession over the said 1/6th share of the defendant No. 1. Thereafter, the society had constructed a Gaushala, orphanage, Samadhi etc. over a portion of the land in dispute. However, the name of the defendant No. 1, Rajendra Nath, contained in the revenue record and taking advantage of the same the said defendant negotiated with and entered into an agreement to transfer a portion of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant No. 2 who planned to make constructions over the same ; hence the suit. The suit Vas being contested by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Another Suit No. 1188 of 1989 regarding the same property was filed by Vidya Matri Mandir and 3 others for permanent injunction restraining the defendants of the said suit from making any construction over the land in dispute. The applications for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid two suits were rejected by the Court below against which the plaintiffs preferred F.A.F.O. Nos. 1199 of 1990 and 1199 of 1990 before this Court which were heard together. Both these appeals were allowed by this Court by order dated 27.3.1991 and the defendants were restrained from changing the status of the land and from making any construction over the same.' However, the injunction was made operative for a period of six months from the date of the order with the order that it was open to the Lower Court to extend this period from time to time. Another Suit No. 735 of 1989 was filed by Rajendra Nath against the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1010 of 1989 claiming 1/6th share in the disputed property. All the three suits have been consolidated and are pending before the Court below. Suit No. 735 of 1989 has been treated to be the leading case.
(3.) It appears that an application dated 15.5.1992 was filed by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 1010 of 1980 alleging that dispute the fact that the injunction granted by this Court was operating, the defendants had made various constructions on the land in dispute in violation of the injunction order and, therefore, the said constructions may be demolished. The Court below allowed the said application vide the order dated 28.7.1992. Against the said order Rajendra Nath and others preferred a revision before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 25.9.1992, directed the Court below to ascertain and determine the constructions which have to be demolished and to what extent. On 11.2.1993 the Court below passed an order of demolition of the illegal constructions raised on the land in question. According to the contesting opposite parties when the defendants failed to stop the demolition of the illegal constructions they got another Suit No. 772 of 1992 filed by one Jai Prakash Tyagi and obtained an ex-parte injunction. On contest the ex-parte order was clarified to the extent that the interim order shall not be operative against the demolition which were to be effected in pursuance of the order passed by the competent Court. Two other suits, namely Suit No. 389 of 1990 and Suit No. 390 of 1990 have been filed by the wife of defendant Satpal Singh and the wife of defendant Jagpal Singh for prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff-opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Interim orders for temporary injunction were passed in the said suits but subsequently, the injunction applications were rejected. According to the contesting opposite parties when all attempts failed the defendants set up the present applicants and got an application filed under Order I, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C. for their impleadment as defendants in Suit No. 1010 of 1989. The applicants claim that they are owners of a portion of the disputed land by virtue of a sale-deed executed by the plaintiffs and they have made constructions on their respective land. Consequently, they are necessary and interested parties and they should be impleaded as defendants in the Suit. The said applications was opposed by the plaintiff-opposite parties, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs had not sold any land to the applicants and the allegation to that effect was incorrect. The defendants themselves had admitted in Suit No. 1010 of 1989 that the constructions had been made by them on the disputed land and the application for impleadment was filed mala fide only with a view to delay the proceedings. It was also stated that the application (Paper No. 112 C) for temporary injunction filed by the applicants was misconceived. The Court below after considering the impleadment application and the objections filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties vide the orders dated 29.3.1993 rejected the applications for impleadment and for temporary injunction filed by the applicants. Aggrieved, the applicants have preferred the aforesaid revision in this Court. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Counsel appearing for the contesting plaintiff-opposite parties at the admission stage and the revision is being finally decided, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, at the admission stage itself.;