Point of law: Validity of, and effect of S. 52 – Doctrine of lis pendens is based on ground that it is necessary for administration of justice that decision of a court in a suit should be binding not only on litigating parties but on those who derive title pendente lite – S. 52 however does not annul pendente lite conveyance or transfer or make it void but renders it subservient to rights of parties to a litigation as may be eventually determined by court – Thus, transfer made in favour of subsequent purchaser is subject to riders and restraint orders passed by court, if any.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal from order under O.43 R.1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants assailing a common order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below exhs. 5 and 22 in Special Civil Suit No. 145 of 2014 by which, interim injunction applications filed by the original plaintiffs came to be allowed and the original defendants were directed to maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the suit qua the land situated at village: Bamroli, Sub-district: Surat City – Majura, District: Surat, bearing revenue survey No. 70/2, block No. 105, T. P. Scheme No. 58 (Bamroli), Final Plot No. 6 admeasuring 5807 sq. mtrs. of old tenure land.

2. The appellants are the original defendant Nos. 17 to 28, whereas, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs and the respondent Nos. 3 to 18 are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 16. For the sake of convenience, the parties, herein after, would be referred to as per their original status.

3. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that the plaintiffs filed a Special Civil Suit No. 145 of 2014 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat against the defendants seeking prayers, essentially, against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 therein, as per prayer paragraphs 11(1) to 11(6) in the suit. Prayer 11(7) came to be added later on. The claim of plaintiffs was with respect to undivided share admeasuring 967.83 sq. mtrs. of land only and not for the whole portion of land. The suit, principally, was filed for specific performance of the registered agreement to sell dated 16.01.2014 and for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs are the holders of agreement to sell for the land admeasuring 967.83 sq. mtrs. It is the case of the appellants that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the joint owners of the entire property bearing revenue survey No. 70/2, Block No. 105 of mouje: Majura, Village: Bamroli, admeasuring 8296 sq. mtrs. The said land was a new tenure land, which was subsequently converted into old tenure land by the present appellants. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application exh. 5 for interim injunction. That, during the pendency of the suit, the entire property was sold by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the defendant Nos. 3 to 28 (including the appellants) by a registered sale deed dated 10.03.2014 for the larger portion of land, excluding the disputed land admeasuring 967.83 sq. mtrs. The trial Court issued notice in application exh. 5, however, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit land in favour of the present appellants by a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2014, which pertains to only 967.83 sq. mtrs. of land. That, on 04.10.2014, the plaintiffs filed the application exh. 22 with a prayer to restrain the defendants from selling, transferring or dealing with the suit property in favour of any third party in respect of undivided share of 967.83 sq. mtrs. by virtue of registered sale deed dated 03.06.2014. As the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had sold the land in question to the appellants, the plaintiffs filed an application exh. 27 for impleading the present appellants as party defendants Nos. 17 to 28 and for amending the suit as well as application exh. 5 in view of subsequent development, which came to be allowed by an order dated 07.01.2016.

3.1 After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2017 below application exhs. 5 and 22 as referred to herein above, directing to maintain the status quo qua the entire chunk of land, being aggrieved of which, the appellants have preferred present appeal.

4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court on 19.03.2018, learned advocate Ms. K. J. Brahmbhatt appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 5 to 18, though duly served, have chosen not to appear before the Court, whereas, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have remained unserved as refused and