JUDGMENT

S.P. Garg, J.

1. The plaintiffs seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. It is contested by the defendants. Defendants No.1 to 3, however, did not file any formal response to the IA.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The plaintiffs filed the instant suit for Declaration-cum-Permanent and Mandatory injunction against defendants No.1 to 5 in 2008; defendant No.6 Indian Bank was impleaded subsequently by an order dated 27.11.2014. It is averred that by an order dated 26.09.2008, parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the title of the suit property.

3. Plaintiffs' case is that in 2012, an attachment order was received from the Recovery Officer, DRT II, New Delhi regarding the property in question in the recovery proceedings "Indian Bank vs. Rexima Exports". The plaintiffs put appearance before the Recovery Officer and filed their objections. By an order dated 20.12.2012, the Recovery Officer stayed the attachment order; request for modification of the said order was declined on 23.05.2013. By an order dated 30.09.2013, the Presiding Officer, DRT II dismissed the appeal against that order. Vide order dated 08.11.2013 DRAT directed the Recovery Officer to proceed with the attachment of the suit property. The Recovery Officer by an order dated 27.11.2013 took possession of the suit property. Vide order dated 16.12.2013 this Court directed the `receiver' to maintain status quo both as regards title and possession of the suit property; the said order is still in force.

4. This Court in its order dated 01.03.2017 observed that it is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property belonged to the defendant No.1 company of which defendants No.2 & 3 were directors. Defendant No.1 vide Agreement to Sell dated 27.03.1997 and registered General Power of Attorney executed by defendants No.2 & 3 on behalf of the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 agreed to sell the suit property to defendant No.4; at the time of the execution of the Agreement to Sell, the property was under equitable mortgage with Punjab and Sind Bank; the defendant No.4 could redeem it; it was so done and the title deeds were collected from the Punjab and Sind Bank. In 2000, defendant No.4 agreed to sell the suit property to the ten plaintiffs vide separate Agreements to Sell with respect to different portions of the property and put them into constructive possession; the property being under tenancy and the tenant attorned to the plaintiffs as landlords. The tenant in possession of the property vacated it in January, 2003. It is alleged that at that time, the defendant No.2 started disturbing the plaintiffs' possession resulting in filing a suit for injunction to restrain him (defendant No.2) from doing so. In the said suit, the defendant No.2 for himself and on behalf of defendant No.1 recorded the statement not to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the property. In August, 2003, the plaintiffs let out the said property to HDFC Bank Ltd. and it remained in their possession till 30.06.2006.

5. Defendants No.1 to 3 were respondents in the proceedings initiated by defendant No.6 Indian Bank before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for recovery of its dues. The defendant No.6 informed that in the said proceedings vide order dated 05.12.1996 the defendant No.1 was restrained from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the aforesaid property. The said proceedings before the DRT resulted in Recovery Certificate being issued including against the defendants No.1 to 3 on 28.03.2012. It was further recorded that pursuant to the attachment order, physical possession of the property was taken over by defendant No.6 India Bank on 06.12.2013 and the property, as of today, is in physical possession of the Recovery Officer of the DRT.

6. This Court in the said order also made observations regarding maintainability of the present suit seeking