(1) IN the instant application, the applicant M/s. Julien Educational Trust being one of the opposite parties in the revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being C. O. No. 2021 of 2007 has sought an appropriate order. . . . . directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property till the disposal of their application for injunction by the trial Court.

(2) THE facts pertaining to the case are very briefly narrated hereinafter:-On or about 6th February, 2007, the applicants filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, senior Division, Fourth Court, Alipore being Title Suit No. 10 of 2007

(3) ON coming to know that the suit property had already been transferred, the applicants made an application for addition of the transferees as party defendants to the suit.

(4) BY an order dated 17th May, 2007 the application for amendment was allowed and rightly so. There can hardly be any doubt that the transferee of a suit property is a necessary and proper party to a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit property.

(5) THE revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being C. O. No. 2021 of 2007 was, however, moved in the Court challenging the order of the Court below allowing the amendment.

(6) THIS Court found no merits in the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and was inclined to dismiss the application. The second paragraph of the order dated 12 th June, 2007 is extracted here in below for convenience:-

"by the order impugned the transferees of the suit property have been added as defendants in the suit. The order to the extent the transferees have been added as defendants does not call for interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. "

(7) HOWEVER, on the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the revisional application, this Court directed the Court below to hear the application under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in the Court below first. This court in its anxiety to protect the interest of both the parties, having regard to the submission made in Court that the defendants were changing the nature and character of the suit property and/or intending to make construction thereon, directed that status-quo with regard to the suit property be maintained for a period of four weeks or until further orders of the Court below, whichever was earlier. This Court directed the Court below to hear out the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 expeditiously preferably within two weeks from date. This Court further directed that the application of the petitioner for injunction might be heard analogously with the application under order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants.

(8) THE Court below was directed to consider the two applications on merits and not to be influenced in any manner by the order of status-quo passed by this Court. The application was disposed of with the above directions.

(9) IT however appears that the Court below did not hear or dispose of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure within two weeks as directed by this Court. A copy of the order sheet has been produced. It would be relevant to take note of the orders passed subsequent to the order dated 12th June, 2007 of this Court.

(10) ON 13th June, 2007 the Court below fixed 29th June, 2007 for hearing of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 and 10th July, 2007 for hearing of the injunction petition.

(11) ON 22nd June, 2007, a copy of the order dated 12th June, 2007 of this Court was filed in the Court below. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on 29th June, 2007, 09. 07. 2007, 10. 07. 2007, 11. 07. 2007, 12. 07. 2007, 13. 07. 2007, 18. 07. 2007, 02. 08. 2007, 24. 08. 2007, 14. 09. 2007, 27. 09. 200