Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS , Paramjit Singh Nijjar and two others had filed a suit against the defendants wherein specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.09.2005 was claimed. The respondents -defendants -owners during pendency of the suit were venturing to dispose of the property in dispute. To avoid intervention of third party rights during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was filed by the plaintiffs but before the said application was decided, apprehended transfer to create third party rights was made by the respondents -owners in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 (herein), fresh application was moved seeking injunction against the subsequent vendees for restraining them from further alienation of the property at their end so as to avoid creation of third party interest therein. This application was allowed on 06.04.2013. Subsequent vendees against whom the said order was made went in appeal wherein holding that the second application for ad -interim injunction was not maintainable, terming order of 06.04.2013 of the trial court to be perverse and against the law, setting aside the same, the application was dismissed, allowing the appeal with costs. It is against this order of 06.11.2013 of the appellate authority that present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners -plaintiffs.
(2.) IT is claimed that the appellate authority misconstrued the facts as also attending circumstances and passed the impugned order in derogation of the attending circumstances. It is claimed that impugned order not only runs contrary to the facts and circumstances but also runs divergent with the earlier order of 11.04.2012 (Annexure P -7) of the appellate authority itself, wherein liberty had been granted to the petitioners -plaintiffs to pursue their application dated 09.10.2010 (Annexure P -6) against defendants No. 3 to 5 (now respondents No. 1 to 3 in the petition herein). It is claimed that observations of the appellate authority while passing the impugned order that filing of subsequent application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 was barred by res -judicata, also is wrong. Countering the revision petition plea of the respondents -vendees is that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court as there is no irregularity or illegality in the order. Reference has been made to The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. & anr., Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway : (1972) 3 SCC 195; Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim : 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 295 and Maman Chand Vs. Smt. Kamla Vol. : CXIII (1996 -2) The Punjab Law Reporter 147. It is claimed that earlier adjudication of the application provided no ground for the petitioners -plaintiffs to agitate the same issue when the matter had become final. Support has been sought from Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Dehi : (1960) 3 SCR 590; Y.B. Patial & Ors. Vs. Y.L. Patil, (1976) 4 SCC; Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar & anr. : (2005) 1 SCC 787 and Ajay Mohan & ors. Vs. H.N. Rai & ors. : (2008) 2 SCC 507.
(3.) HEARING has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the grounds of the revision and impugned orders as also while appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.;