- (1.)THIS is the revision against the trial Court's Order dated 11-12 1979 dismissing the intervener Ashok Kumar's application for being joined as a party in the pending Civil Suit No. 114 of 66 Sunnu Khan v. Basal and others.
(2.)IN a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, partition and possession filed by Sunnu Khan (Present non-applicant No. 1) against certain members of his family viz. Basal Khan and others (Present-non-applicants-defendants No. 2 to 5), temporary injunction had been granted against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the subject matter viz. the properties in suit. The present applicant Ashok Kumar had purchased some of the lands in suit from the defendants Kasimkhan and Subratikhan (non-applicants No. 4 and 5) during the pendency of the suit. Ashok Kumar having, thus, purchased part of the suit lands, filed the application under order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for being joined as a defendant in the suit. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff, that Ashok Kumar could not be joined the suit, inasmuch as the purchase of the property by him during the pendency of suit was hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property act. The trial Court, upholding the petition of the non-applicant No. 1 sunnu Khan and being further of the opinion that Ashok Kumar's such purchase was in violation of the temporary injunction which had been granted against the defendants, rejected Ashok Kumar's application under Order 22, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and hence now, the present revision.
(3.)THE learned counsel for the applicant Ashok Kumar has urged before me that section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not attracted at all, so as to disentitle him from being joined as a party to safeguard his own interest, consequent to his purchase of a part of suit property from some of the defendants who being the close relatives of the plaintiffs, could as well, any time, may choose to collude with the plaintiff, to the detriment of the interests of the applicant purchaser Ashok Kumar. Violation of temporary injunction is also urged to be of no effect so far as he was concerned, since the temporary injunction was net against him, but, was against the existing defendants, who alone could be proceeded against, according to law, for violation of the order of temporary injunction. In this context, it is also urged that plaintiff's own sons had equally purchased part of the suit property from the defendants Kasimkhan and Subratikhan during the pendency of the suit and despite the Order of temporary injunction, being in force, against these defendants. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant Ashok Kumar has filed before me the certified copy of the sale-deed dated 14-8-1974.