Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. The appellants (Ahmed Mian and his successors-in-interest) before this Court are the defendants in the suit proceedings. They are aggrieved by two orders i.e. order dated 03.03.2011 and order 18.05.2012. Vide order dated 18.05.2012, the review petition filed by the appellants seeking a review of the order dated 03.03.2011 had been dismissed. The Court had returned a finding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record calling for the review of order dated 03.03.2011. Vide order dated 03.03.2011, the learned Single Judge had negatived the argument of learned counsel for the appellants predicated on Explanations III & IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `Code'). The learned Single Judge was of the view that neither of the aforenoted Explanations apply to the facts of the case and the plea that the present suit was barred by the principle of res-judicata had been declined.

2. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing No. 878, Haveli Azam Khan, Chitli Qabar, Delhi measuring 120 square yards. It was owned by Mohd. Mian. After his death the property fell to the share of his two sons namely Mehmood Mian and Ahmed Mian. Mehmood Mian was in occupation of the first floor of the premises. Ahmed Mian and his family were living on the ground floor.

3. The respondents before this Court are Abdul Wahid and his successors-in-interest. The case of the respondents is that they were inducted into the first floor of the suit property by Mehmood Mian as tenants. On 08.08.1987, the parties had entered into an agreement to sell vide which the respondents had agreed to purchase the first floor of the property owned by Mehmood Mian for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/-; a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given in cash as earnest money by the respondents to Mehmood Mian in terms of the agreement to sell dated 08.08.1987

4. In October, 1987 the appellants filed a suit (suit No. 605/1987) for perpetual injunction against Mehmood Mian. A status quo order was passed on 30.10.1987 qua the title and possession of the suit property. On 06.11.1987, a duly registered sale deed was executed between Mehmood Mian and the respondents which was in furtherance of the agreement to sell dated 08.08.1987. This sale deed was executed during the pendency of the status quo order. The case of the respondents is that at the time of the execution of the sale deed a sum of Rs. 38,000/- was paid by them to Mehmood Mian.

5. Mehmood Mian expired on 19.11.1987. He was issueless.

6. Thereafter Suit No. 605/1987 was sought to be amended in view of the subsequent fact i.e. execution of the sale deed dated 06.11.1987 by Mehmood Mian in favour of the respondents. Plaint was amended and the respondents were added as parties. In this amended plaint, the appellants sought a cancellation of this said sale deed dated 06.11.1987 in addition to their prayer for perpetual injunction.

7. Written statement was filed by the respondents in the said suit. The claim made by the appellants was disputed. Submission was that Mehmood Mian being a co-owner in the property (although admittedly an undivided share in the property) was legally authorized to sell his half share and the prayer made in the plaint accordingly be not granted.

8. In the said suit, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as per preliminary objections no. 4" OPD.

3. Whether plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? Onus on parties.

4. Whether the sale deed dated 6.11.87 executed by Mahmood Mian in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 in respect of property no. 878, Gali Masjid Anarwali, Bazar Chitli Kabar, Haveli Azqam Khan, Jama Masjid Anarwali, Bazar Chitli Kabar, Haveli Azam Kham, Jama Masjid, Delhi is illegal, void and ineffective. If so, its effect? OPD.

5. Wheth