The court upheld that a third-party trust can be joined in property disputes if property transfers are executed lawfully and do not violate existing status quo orders regarding possession.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. The present Revision Application has been filed to quash and set aside the order dated 07.03.2024 and order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019 whereby the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad allowed application Exhibit-95 to join third party respondent No.2 in Appeal from Order and also allowed application Exhibit-115 of the appellant to amend the cause title of the appeal memo to join the respondent No.2 as party defendant and the trustee of respondent No.2 as defendant.

2. The parties are referred to plaintiff and defendant herein. Brief facts leading to the present Revision Application are as under:-

2.1 The plaintiff filed suit HRP Suit No.330 of 2014 with respect to three properties, (property No.1 mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, S.No.523, T.P. Scheme N.28, F.P. No.704, open land admeasuring 5000 sq. yards.) (Property No.2 mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, S.No.523, Ward No.83, T.P. Scheme No.28, F.P. No.704, Municipal Tenement No.0530-19-0771-0003-R, admeasuring 90.29 sq. mtr.) (Property No.3 mentioned in paragraph No.3of the plaint, S.No.523, admeasuring 1000 sq. yards), claiming that their predecessor were the tenants of the above referred premises and that the plaintiff stated in the plaint that the owner of the suit premises are defendant No.1 and that the plaintiffs are the tenants of defendant No.1, the plaintiffs have sought relief at para-18 of the plaint for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcibly the possession of the premises mentioned at para-2 of the plaint, restraining the defendants from injunction with respect to property mentioned at para-1, the plaintiff has also sought for an injunction that the defendant may not make any alteration with respect to the possession of the premises mentioned at para-2 of the plaint and with respect to the property mentioned at para-1 & 3, the plaintiff sought for an injunction restraining the defendant from making any temporary or permanent construction in the premises.

2.2 In the said suit by an order dated 02.05.2014, the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit premises thereafter, after by parte hearing by an order dated 18.11.2019, the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad partly allowed the said injunction application and granted temporary injunction against the defendant by restraining them from taking away the possession of property mentioned at para-2 of the plaint from the plaintiff and from demolishing the property mentioned at para-2 of the plaint. The relief sought by the plaintiff in respect of the property mentioned at para-1 and 3 of the plaint were rejected and the status quo granted earlier was vacated, to the extent of property mentioned at para-1 and 3 of the application.

2.3 It is also required to be noted here that the property mentioned at para-1 and 3 are open land and property mentioned at para-2 has construction on the said property.

3. The plaintiff intended to challenge the order passed by the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, on 18.11.2019, an application was given by the plaintiff to stay the order passed on 18.11.2019 and on the same date the said order dated 18.11.2019 was stayed by the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by an order passed below Ex