A valid sale extinguishes the seller's rights, and collusion to bypass this principle results in void transactions.

JUDGMENT :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.) :

1. This Civil Application for Leave to Appeal has been filed by the applicants against the judgement and decree dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned Court of 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Ahmedabad Rural) in Special Civil Suit No. 323 of 2010. Together with the Leave to Appeal, a Civil Application for condonation of delay in filing the Leave to Appeal was also filed.

1.1 The civil application for Leave to Appeal was extensively heard by a Division Bench of this Court. Considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant based on the facts stated in the memo of the civil application for Leave to Appeal, the Division Bench of this court passed an order dated 02.04.2024. While issuing notice to the respondents in the Leave to Appeal where, one Girish Natwarlal Patel was not a party arrayed as a respondent in the appeal, the Court granted interim relief in terms of para 6BB till the next date of hearing. Para 6BB of the civil application for Leave to Appeal which was added on the very date on which the arguments on the civil application for Leave to Appeal were heard reads as under:

“6(BB) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain Girish Natwarlal Patel or any other person acting on his behalf, from entering upon and/or from selling, transferring, mortgaging, leasing, creating third party rights, creating encumbrances or dealing with land bearing Survey No. 138 (previously Survey No. 232), situated in Mouje: Jodhpur, Taluka: Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, in any manner whatsoever.”

1.2 Therefore, by way of the amendment which is referred to hereinabove, one Girish Natwarlal Patel was restrained from dealing with the property in question as set out in the prayer clause reproduced hereinabove. Though not being a party, Registry did issue a writ of the civil application for Leave to Appeal to Girish Natwarlal Patel informing him of the stay granted by this court.

1.3 As recorded in the order dated 02.04.2024, the question whether it is necessary to file an application for condonation of delay was argued and considered. Reference was made to an order dated 17.03.2020 passed in Civil Application No. 1474 of 2020, which reads as under:

“Rule returnable on 15.04.2020.

Normally before adjudication of the issue of delay, this Court would not issue an injunction; however, in view of peculiar facts emerging from the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a title holder of the suit property and has not conveyed the title either directly or through power of attorney; and that the opponents in collusion; instituted a suit and invited a decree on compromise as also they in collusion instituted the execution petition whereupon despite the original defendant having no title to the disputed property was able to convey the applicant's title, the opponents are directed to maintain the status-quo with regard to the title and encumbrance of the suit property till the returnable date. Direct service is permitted.”

1.4 It was in light of this observation of the Co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 02.04.2024, that we have considered the application for condonation of delay together with the application for leave to appeal.

2 Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Venu Nanavaty, learned advocate for Mr. Girish Natwarlal Patel, vehemently objected to the continuance of the interim relief. It was brought to our notice that when the interim relief was granted by this court, the civil application for impleading Mr. Patel as a party respondent and the civil application for additional evidence filed by the applicants of the civil application for Leave to Appeal were not listed. A submission was therefore made that without a formal impleadment of Mr. Girish Natwarlal Patel, the Registry would not accept any appearance on his behalf. However, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the interim relief dated 02.04.2024 could not have been granted mu