Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances.

3. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:

The petitioner is a defendant in a pending civil suit. The suit is filed by respondent in a Nos.1 and 5 herein along with respondents, 2 to 4, who are the other defendants apart from the petitioner. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants including the petitioner from interfering with the suit property. The petitioner claims that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff-first respondent herein, under a family arrangement as record under a document dated 20.04.1974 and that she was in exclusive possession of the same. The suit property is agricultural land. The defendants are the divided sons of the plaintiff. It was alleged that they along with other persons, were making hectic attempts to interfere with the suit property. There is also a criminal complaint lodged against the defendants. The petitioner herein had filed his written statement, Contesting the suit while denying that there was a partition or any family arrangement. It is claimed that apart from the suit property, there are several other properties which are all joint family properties. It was only on account of discord amongst the women folk in the family, that the defendants were living separately, but however, there was no partition of the properties. The petitioner claims that he was in fact, in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is contended that the plaintiff was the third wife of his father and the other defendants are her sons. It is further alleged that the plaintiff and the other defendants have in collusion set up the alleged family arrangement and the purported signature of the petitioner under the deed recording a family arrangement, was forged. The petitioner states that he is the son of the second wife of late Veeranna. The other defendants have taken advantage of his illiteracy and have used their learning to defraud the petitioner of his legitimate share in the family properties. In that, the defendants have manipulated the revenue entries in respect of the family properties to exclude the petitioner from the properties. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the revenue entries in appropriate proceedings. It is further alleged that even during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has bequeathed the suit property under a registered gift deed dated 09.06.2004 in favour of respondent No.5. who in turn, had failed an application seeking to implead herself in the suit. That application was contested by the petitioner. But, however the same having been allowed, the petitioner seeks to challenge the same.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above circumstances, contends that the suit being one for bare injunction failed in the year 1997 and the impleading applicant claming under a gift deed admittedly, executed during the pendency of the suit, the applicant could not claim a right to continue the suit by virtue of the said gift deed. Further, since the suit is for the relief of bare injunction, the only issue that would arise is whether there was alleged interference by the defendants with the suit property, and therefore, the impleading applicant would have no cause of action to claim a right to participate as co-plaintiff. The reason assigned by the trail court that the application deserves to be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, is not a consideration on which an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC” for brevity) could have been allowed. It is these primary contentions, which are sought to be enlarged in the arguments put forth.

5. It is contended that the relief of injunction, If granted, would confer a right in personam, to enforce th