Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) The subject of dispute in the present appeal is an immovable property, being premises No. 43, Taltolla Lane. The appellants claim to be the intending purchaser of the same by virtue of an agreement for sale entered into between Shaukat Ali, the predecessor of the appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 7, being the original owners of the premises, on 25th December, 1993. The respondent Nos. 8 and 9, claim to have acquired ownership of the said property by virtue of a deed of sale executed on 15th May, 1995 in their favour by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. In both these transactions, one Noel David, as the constituted attorney of the original owners of the property (being respondent Nos. 1 to 7) had executed the documents on their behalf. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 either by themselves or through Noel David did not enter into appearance before the Trial Court expectedly, and we did not direct service of notice upon them at the present stage of the proceeding.
(2.) The present appeal, arises out of an order passed on 3rd March, 2004 by the learned Judge in charge of the 9th Bench of the City Civil Court of Calcutta on an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Suit No. 1182 of 1999. The appellants, being the plaintiffs in that suit had obtained an order of temporary injunction on 21st February, 2003 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein directing them to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property asserting equitable right over the said property. The suit was filed when, as per the case of the appellants, the defendants declined to complete the sale in pursuance of the agreement referred to above in spite of being requested to do so. In the plaint, a copy which has been produced before us, it has been pleaded that as per the agreement the value of the property was rupees five lacs and a sum of rupees two lacs and fifty thousand had already been advanced to the vendor as earnest money and part payment. The suit was filed on 12th July, 1999 and the suit was for specific performance of the agreement for sale. In this suit, the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were not impleaded as defendants.
(3.) The appellants' case is that subsequent to the institution of the suit, they discovered "feverish building activity" and that on enquiry they came to learn that the premises had apparently been transferred and move was afoot to demolish the said premises, which prompted them to apply for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from further dealing with the said property and from effecting any work of construction in any form at the subject premises. This petition for temporary injunction was filed, it has been submitted before us, on 14th February, 2003. The learned Trial Judge was pleased to pass an order of status quo in respect of the said property on 21st February, 2003 initially till 21st March, 2003, which had been extended subsequently. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 got themselves impleaded as added defendants/respondents in the said suit in the Trial Court. They have filed written objection to the petition for temporary injunction also filed an application under Rule 4 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the order of status quo. The case of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9, whom we shall refer to as the contesting respondents in later part of this order, is that they had made purchase of the suit property under a registered deed of conveyance executed on 15th May, 1995. It has been submitted on their behalf that before making such purchase they were assured by Noel David, the constituted attorney of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 that the subject property was free from all encumbrances and charges. Thereafter, upon making search from the Registration Authority, they made the purchase. Subsequent to purchasing the subject property, they had got their names recorded with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in their assessment role and were in the process construction of a building through two individuals, Kafil Ahmed and Raju. who are described by the contesting respondents as "honest and reliable contractors" in the pleadings filed in the Trial Court.;