- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 5.7.2007, passed in Partition Suit No.1 93 of 2006, whereby, the learned court below has refused to grant injunction, prayed by the plaintiffs -appellants in a suit for partition.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the suit property is a joint family property and both the plaintiffs and defendants are the co - sharers. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also not disputed the fact that the suit property is a joint family property. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the persons in whose favour transfer has been made by the respondents during pendency of the suit have not been made party in the partition suit.
(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived. At the very outset, the defendants -respondents ought not to have sold the property during pendency of the partition suit. Even if such transfer is made, that will be subject to the decision of the partition suit and such transfer is also hit by lis pendens. The learned court below has failed to take into consideration that to check the multiplicity of the proceedings, a prohibitory order is to be passed. In my view, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.;