MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiffspetitioners and Shri J.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents.
(2.) The petitioners are before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannauj in Civil Suit No. 572 of 2013 (Dharmendra Gupta and others v. Har Narain (dead) and others) by which he has rejected the interim injunction application 46-C and the order dated 4.4.2018 passed by the District Judge, Kannauj by which he has dismissed the Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2017 (Dharmendra Gupta and others v. Har Narain (dead) , with direction to the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application after hearing both the parties and for direction to the respondents not to create any third party interest during the pendency of the Civil Suit.
(3.) It appears that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 572 of 2013 on 12.12.2013 for permanent injunction in which the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannauj passed an ad-interim injunction order on 16.12.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed plots. Smt. Sarwati, who had executed registered sale deed dated 4.8.1993 in favour of the petitioners, came to know that the defendant no.2, namely Ramadhar Dubey prepared a forged and fabricated power of attorney dated 27.8.1990 and executed registered sale deed dated 2.7.1991 in respect of her share in disputed plots in favour of his real brother Sri Har Narain Dubey. Consequently, she filed Civil Suit No. 310 of 2014 for cancellation of the power of attorney and the sale deed in question. Meanwhile, Har Narain died on 9.5.2015 and his heirs have been brought on record. During the pendency of the suit, Smt. Sudha Devi wife of Ramadhar also tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed plots. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made an application dated 29.9.2016 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC readwith Order 6 Rule 17 CPC/Section 151 CPC for impleading Smt. Sudha Devi as defendant no.3 and also for amending the plaint and adding the relief for cancellation of the sale deed dated 4.7.1992. The aforesaid applications were allowed by the Civil Judge (SD), Kannauj. The plaintiffs also made an application under Section 151 CPC readwith Order 39 Rule 1/2 CPC in the aforesaid suit for restraining the newly impleaded defendant namely Smt. Sudha Devi from interfering with the plaintiffs' title and possession over the disputed land. By the order dated 9.8.2017 the Civil Judge (SD), Kannauj rejected the said application on 9.8.2017 on the ground that once the injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed plot has already been passed, then there was no occasion or reason to pass an injunction against Smt. Sudha Devi and the same has been approved by the lower Appellate Court on 4.4.2018.;