G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs' suit was one for partition claiming 1/3rd interest in the total property. Defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 each claim 1/3rd interest. It appears that defendant No. 1 made indiscriminate transfers. The plaintiffs accordingly asked for an order of injunction to restrain the parties not to make any pendente lite transfers. On 13-5-64 the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order that for the ends of justice both the plaintiffs and defendants i to 3 should be restrained, during the pendency of the suit, from transferring any immovable property mentioned in the plaint schedule without express leave of the Court being obtained by an application. Despite this injunction order, defendant No. 1 (who died during the pendency of this revision) transferred on 14-12-64 some lands in favour of the petitioners who have not yet been implead-ed as parties to the suit. On 30-11-65 the petitioners filed an application before the Subordinate Judge to implead them as defendants and also to allow their bhag tenants to harvest the paddy crop. The learned Subordinate Judge in his order dated 1-12-65 dismissed the prayer for according permission to the tenants to h