ORDER

Re : I.A. No. 1 of 2022

The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants praying for passing an order of status quo by way of ad-interim injunction for restraining the respondents from alienating and encumbering the suit property and also from changing the physical feature of the suit property during the pendency of the present appeal.

2. Mr. J.S. Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the appellants filed a Title Suit bearing No. 427 of 2018 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land as detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint as well as challenged six deeds of sale, admittedly, executed by defendants 2nd set in favour of the defendants 1st set by declaring the same to be null and void. The defendants/respondents not only sold out the lands in question prior to the institution of the suit but during the pendency of the suit, also sold certain properties concerned to the suit land and as such, a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad-interim injunction and passing an order of status quo in regard to the suit property was filed before the learned trial court that was allowed vide order dated 14.03.2019 but subsequently, the learned trial court vacated the said order of injunction vide order dated 30.05.2019. Against, the said order dated 30.05.2019, appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal bearing Misc. Appeal No. 397 of 2019 before this Court which was heard and the prayer for injunction was allowed by order dated 13.05.2020. Here, it is important to mention that in that appeal, the order was reserved on 02.09.2019 and finally the judgment was delivered on 13.05.2020 and during the intervening period, the defendants/respondents again transferred some parts of the suit land through different sale-deeds.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the defendants/respondents challenged the order dated 13.05.2020 before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide SLP No. 8280 of 2020 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere with the judgment of this Court passed in Misc. Appeal No. 397/2019 and in the result, the said SLP was dismissed and from all these facts, it is clearly evident that this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the suit land ought not to have been changed or alienated during the pendency of the suit and it is an established law that an appeal is considered to be continuation of the suit. It is further submitted that after the passing of the impugned judgment, the respondents again proceeded to transfer the suit land and executed several sale-deeds in respect of some parts of the suit land and the copies of the sale deeds have been filed with the supplementary affidavit and the same is sufficient to show that the respondents 2nd set are very interested in creating title in suit land in favour of other persons and if they are permitted to do so, there is a great possibility of multiplicity of litigations or suits in between both the parties.

4. Learned counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that none of the parties of the suit should be permitted to change the nature of the suit land by transferring or alienating the same as such transfer may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass reported in AIR 2005 SC 104 and the relevant paragraph upon which the reliance has been placed is being reproduced for ready reference:—

“10. Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation