( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose of the application filed by one Mr. Basant Kamal Meattle for vacation of the order dated 25th September, 1995 and for permission to the applicant to complete the building stated to be in the final stages on the plot of land bearing No. 465, Sector 15-A, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh as also the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

( 2 ) THE facts in short which have resulted in the filing of the application are that the defendants are stated to have entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid plot of land to the plaintiff and a formal agreement was executed between the parties on or around 14th October, 1986 which is stated to have been back dated to 7th October, 1986. A total sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, out of a total sale consideration of Rs. 7. 50,000. 00. It is alleged in the plaint that in spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendants were not fulfulling their obligation under the agreement and the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell. From the record I find that though service report of service of the summons upon the defendants was awaited, however, Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the defendants on 13th October, 1988. Time was given to the defendants to file written statement and reply to the application and meanwhile defendants were restrained from transferring or alienating the suit property. Written statement was subsequently filed by the defendants. However, neither the Vakalatnama nor the written statement has been signed by defendant No. 2, though Mr. Jagdish Vats had been continuing to appear on behalf of the defendants and upto the date of hearing arguments on 17th October, 1995, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that there is no service report of service upon defendant No. 2 nor there is any proper appearance on behalf of the said defendant. Suit was being adjorned from time to time and till date even the application for stay filed in 1988 has not been decided.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff on 22nd September, 1995 filed three applications. One application was under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for an injunction alleging, inter alia, that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants, in spite of an order of injunction passed by the Court on 13th October, 1988, have transferred the property to Mr. B. K. Meattle vide a registered transfer deed dated 20th December, 1994 and the said Mr. Meattle was carrying on the construction of a house on the said property and it was, therefore, prayed that the said Mr. Meattle be restrained from raising any construction of any nature whatsoever in the suit property and from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest therein. By the other application under Order 1 Rule 10 the plaintiff wanted the said Mr. Meattle to be impleaded as a party to the suit. Still another application was filed under Order 39 Rule 2 A alleging, inter alia, that the order dated 13th October, 1988 had been violated by the defendants by transferring the property to Mr. Meattle and the defendants should, therefore, be proceeded with for their having committed a contempt of Court. By an ex parte order dated 25th September, 1995 Mr. B. K. Meattle was restrained from transferring or in any other manner alienating the suit property and from making any additions/alterations or raising any further construction therein. It was on receipt of notice of this application that the applicant filed the present application under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the said order dated 25th September, 1995.

( 4 ) THE case as set up by the applicant is that the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and the defendants and the applicant was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the agreement stated to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the de