1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 12/02/2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order the application being Chamber Summons No.954 of 2012 for bringing the heirs of the original Plaintiff by transposing the Defendant Nos.4(a) to 4(c) as Plaintiffs came to be allowed.

3. The issue therefore which arises in the above Petition is as regards the entitlement of the Defendant Nos.4(a) to 4(c) to be transposed as Plaintiffs.

4. The suit in question was originally filed in this Court and was numbered as L.C. Suit No.1948 of 1999. On the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai being enhanced, the said suit came to be transferred to the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai and is now numbered as S.C. Suit No.8446 of 1999. The said suit has been filed for seeking declaration that the original Plaintiff and the Defendant No.4 are the owners of one-half undivided share in the property known as Victoria Terrace comprising of Flat Nos. 2, 4 and 6 with the proportionate common areas together with one half undivided share in the land on which the said building is standing. The original Plaintiff also sought a declaration that the Agreement for Sale dated 3/7/1969 allegedly executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.1, the Deed of Confirmation dated 23/10/1996 executed by the Defendant No.1 in her own favour and the Indenture dated 1/11/1996 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are null and void and liable to be set aside. The original Plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the transfer of tenancy in respect of flat No.4 in Victoria Terrace by the Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 is null and void and she is entitled to possession of the said flat No.4. The original Plaintiff has also sought certain consequential reliefs like mense profit and rendering of accounts etc.

5. In the said suit, the Plaintiff filed an application for injunction and for appointment of receiver by way of Notice of Motion . Whilst adjudicating upon the said Notice of Motion, a learned Single Judge of this Court (A.P. Shah.J. as His Lordship then was) has recorded a finding in respect of the genuineness of the said Agreement for Sale dated 3/7/1969. The learned Judge has expressed serious doubts about execution of the said Agreement for Sale. The reasons recorded for the same, as can be seen from the said order, are interalia the following :

(i) The request of the Defendant No.1 for a Power of Attorney to be executed in her favour was turned down by the original Plaintiff Monica alias Mona Grace Cousin;

(ii) The Defendant No.1 had addressed a letter to the Plaintiff that her share is not put up for disposal;

(iii) That for a period of 15 years during which correspondence was exchanged between the parties there was not a whisper by the Defendant No.1 in respect of the alleged Agreement dated 3/7/1969.

6. In so far as the Deed of Confirmation is concerned, the learned Judge has posed a question as to how the Plaintiff can confer title on herself by signing a Deed of Confirmation in her own favour. The learned Judge, therefore, allowed the said Notice of Motion and appointed the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as a Receiver of the property pending the suit. The Receiver still continues to be in possession of the property. The Defendant No.4 i.e. Alan Cousin died on 17/7/2010, as a consequence of which a Chamber Summons was filed by the Applicant i.e. the Power of Attorney Holder of the original Plaintiff for bringing his heirs on record. The said Chamber Summons No.1309 of 2010 came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22/12/2010. It is an undisputed position that the said order was not carried further and therefore the order