- (1.) The challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 29.08.2007 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2007 (184 of 1991), whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondents No. 2 to 18 (original applicants) for being added as the party plaintiffs No. 2 to 18 in the suit filed by the respondent No. 19 (original plaintiff) against the petitioners (original defendants) under order I Rule 10 of CPC and has also allowed the application filed by the respondents No. 2 to 18 under Order VI Rule 17, seeking amendment in the application filed under Order I Rule 10 for impleading them as the party plaintiffs instead of the party defendants in the suit. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 19-plaintiff-society has filed the suit against the petitioners and others-defendants seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 27th May, 1981 allegedly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff-society in respect of the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 133 and 133/246 admeasuring 32 bighas 3 biswas, situated in village Beed Khatipura Tehsil Jaipur. The said suit appears to have been filed by the plaintiff-society in October, 1991, wherein it was alleged inter-alia that the agreement in question was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff-society on 27th May, 1981 and the possession of the lands in question was also handed over to the plaintiff-society. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had paid up the entire sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 9,45,000/- by making payment on different dates and that the time limit for the execution of the sale deed was extended from time to time on 31.8.1984, 27.11.1987 and lastly on 15.07.1988. However, when the Secretary and other members of the society requested the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the society to on 27.12.1988, the defendants refused to execute the same and hence the suit was filed.
(2.) In the said suit, the petitioner-defendants filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending inter-alia that no such agreement as alleged by the plaintiff was executed nor the plaintiff had paid Rs. 9,45,000/- as alleged in the plaint, and therefore the plaintiff-society was not entitled to any relief in the suit as claimed by it. It was further contended that the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were also pending in respect of the said lands in question, and that the land acquisition proceedings were also pending for acquisition of the said lands by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, for which some writ petitions were also filed and decided by the High Court.
(3.) It further appears that the respondent No. 19-plaintiff had also filed an application for temporary injunction pending the suit and the trial Court vide its order dated 5.10.1999 had directed the parties to maintain status quo as per the report of the Commissioner dated 19.5.1998 during the pendency of the suit.;