The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits the transfer or dealing with immovable property subject to a pending suit to affect the rights of the parties.

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks assailing of order dated 17.05.2012 of Additional District Judge, Central-07, Delhi, whereby he directed maintenance of status quo by the parties with respect to title of the suit property bearing No. A-20A, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi till the disposal of the suit.

2. The petitioner is defendant No. 5 in the suit filed by the respondent Inder Raj. The petitioner had purchased this suit property from defendant No. 2 Kuldeep Kaur who in turn had purchased the same from defendant No. 1 Malik Chand Grover. Inder Raj and Malik Chand Grover (henceforth referred to as “Malik Chand”) are in closed relations and in joint business. They were allotted one plot admeasuring 450 sq yards being plot bearing No. A-20, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. They are litigating as regard to their shares in the said plot. The portion of the plot which has been sold by Malik Chand to defendant No. 2 and who in turn had sold it to the petitioner (defendant No. 5) is 270 sq. yards out of total plot of 450 sq. yards. The respondent Inder Raj had filed a suit of injunction against Malik Chand in the year 2003 restraining him from selling any portion of the said plot A-20. That suit is pending in the Trial Court. Thereafter he filed the instant suit being suit No. 259/2005 against Malik Chand, Kuldeep Kaur and the present petitioner besides the DDA and the MCD. It was in this suit that order of status quo has been passed by the learned ADJ which is assailed by the petitioner in the instant petition.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that the respondent Inder Raj earlier filed a writ petition in this Court disputing the bifurcation of the plot admeasuring 450 sq. yards into two plots as plot No. A-20-A measuring 270 sq. yards and plot No. A-20-B measuring 180 sq. yards. It was submitted that this bifurcation was approved by Lieutenant Governor. This was challenged by the respondent by way of a Writ being W.P.(C) 7671/2007 which came to be dismissed on 5th August 2008. LPA against the same also came to be dismissed by this Court on 1.12.2008. SLP against the said order also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19.10.2009.

4. It was the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the matter has already been decided against the respondent Inder Raj, he was left with no right of any kind in the plot admeasuring 270 sq. yards which was numbered as A-22-A on the approval of the bifurcation by Lt. Governor.

5. It is true that the writ petition filed by the respondent Inder Raj as also the LPA and the SLP were dismissed by this Court and the Supreme Court, as informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, it is noted that while dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court passed the order as under:

“We find no reason to interfere. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the order of the Lt. Governor and the dismissal of the petitioners writ petition and LPA will not come in the way of the petitioner pursuing the pending suits.”

6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that though the SLP was dismissed, but the Supreme Court had permitted the respondent to pursue the pending suit. The interpretation that was sought to be given to the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that what was decided by this Court in the writ petition and the LPA qua the suit property, could not be re-agitated in the pending suit, is entirely misplaced. If it was so, the Supreme Court would have clearly passed such an order. Giving any other interpretation to the clear and unambiguous order of the Supreme Court would be reading in between which is not permissible. The fact of the matter is that one suit filed by the respondent in 2003 seeking restraint against defendant No. 2 Malik Chand from selling the property and another suit filed against Malik Chand, K