Equitable principles require maintaining status quo pending litigation to prevent third-party rights; appellate courts should not disturb interim orders without clear error.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The above appeals are filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’] by the defendant No.26 calling in question the common order dated 19.11.2024 passed in O.S. No.687/2015 by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMVC., Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’], whereunder I.As. No.8 and 9 filed by the plaintiff have been allowed and the defendant No.26 has been restrained from changing the nature or alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that the respondent No.1 – plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No.687/2015 seeking for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff claims to be an agreement holder from the defendants No.1 to 25 vide agreement dated 18.10.2010, whereunder the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,10,000/-. The defendant No.26 is the purchaser of the suit property from defendants No.1 to 25 under registered sale deed dated 13.02.2023.

3. In the suit, defendants No.1 to 25 were arrayed as parties at the time of filing the suit and subsequently the defendant No.26 was impleaded pursuant to order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.8 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC to restrain the proposed defendant No.26 from altering the nature of the suit property. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No.9 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the defendant No.26 from alienating the suit property. The defendantNo.26 objected to the said applications. The Trial Court, by order dated 19.11.2024 allowed I.As. No.8 and 9 and passed the following –

“ORDER

I.As. No.8 and 9 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Section 151 of CPC is allowed.

Consequently, the defendant No.26 is restrained from changing the nature or alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.”

5. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed by the defendant No.26.

6. Heard learned counsel, Sri.Anjaneya A.B. for the appellant/defendant No.26 and learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, appearing along with the learned counsel Sri.Vachan H.U. for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that although the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2015, upto the year 2023 even the suit summons were not served on defendants No.1 to 25. Reliance is placed on order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Trial Court to contend that only on the said date suit summons were issued to defendants No.1 to 25. It is further contended that the defendant No.26 has been impleaded pursuant to I.A. No.7 filed on 06.10.2023. Hence, it is contended that defendant No.26 was unaware of the pendency of the suit. Further various contentions are sought to be putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the right, title and interest of defendants No.1 to 25 over the suit property and as to the nature of the right that could be asserted by the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 18.10.2010.

8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 seeks to justify the order passed by the Trial Court and contends that the sale deed dated 13.02.2023 under which the defendant No.26 claims to have purchased the suit property its