Sunita Agarwal, J.

The present petition is directed against the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, IIIrd, Agra in Civil Appeal No.158 of 2008 (Shri Giriraj Singh & others Vs. Ashwani Kumar Singh & others), whereby the application 87-Ga moved by the respondent no.12 namely the transferee of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 for substitution/impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been allowed. This is the defendant's petition. The Civil Appeal No.158 of 2008 arose out of the Original Suit No.127 of 1971 which was filed for the relief of declaration of the sale deeds mentioned in schedule 'A' of the plaint as null and void document and being not binding on the plaintiff. Further relief was sought for declaration of the share of the plaintiff in the suit property, described in schedule 'A' and 'B'. The relief of permanent injunction was also sought against the defendant nos.1 and 2 restraining them from dealing with the suit property in schedule-'B' in any manner and further to direct them to give details of income and expenditure of the joint Hindu property, which the defendant nos.1 and 2 had received being Karta of joint Hindu family.

2. The plaintiff Ashwani Kumar Singh is one of the heirs of the original owner of the suit property namely Gopal Das. It was claimed that defendant no.1 and 2 namely Harish Narain Singh and Awdhesh Narain Singh had alienated the suit property as Karta of joint hindu family for their own benefit and not for the benefit of other co sharers who were minors at the relevant point of time. The transfer made by defendant nos.1 and 2 was, therefore, illegal and the sale deeds are to be declared as void and ineffective so far as the plaintiff's share is concerned. The said suit had been decreed partly vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2008 and the sale deeds executed by defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of other defendants, as described in schedule-'A' of the plaint had been declared null and void.

3. Simultaneously, the prayer of declaration of share of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/4th in the properties described in schedule 'A' & 'B' of the plaint had been allowed. The defendants were directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as also to the defendant nos.2/1 to 2/6 and defendant nos.3, heirs of Awdhesh Narain Singh and Harish Narain Singh, as co-parceners of the suit.

4. The judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008 has been challenged in Civil Appeal No.158 of 2008. It appears that the execution of the decree has been stayed by the first appellate court on admission of the appeal.

5. However, the appellants/defendant nos.7 & 8 claiming to be bonafide purchaser of the suit property vide sale deed dated 08.01.1965 sought temporary injunction against the plaintiffs/respondents vide application 34-Ga moved in the appeal. The said application was contested by plaintiff-respondent no.1 by filing his objection paper no.37-Ga. The first appellate court has proceeded to pass an order of status quo dated 22.09.2012, relevant extract of which read as under:-

vihy Hkh ewy okn dh dk;Zokgh dh rkjrE;rk esa gSA i{kdkjksa ds e/; mDr lEifRr ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; ds lEcU/k esa ln~HkkoukRed fookn fo|eku gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa U;k;ky; dh bl lEcU/k es ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds lUnHkZ esa leqfpr vkns'k ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk izkIr gSA

bl çdkj mi;qZDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd vihy ds yEcu ds nkSjku mHk;i{kksa dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkuk mfpr çrhr gksrk gSA fd i{kdkj fookfnr lEifRr ij fLFkr fuekZ.kksa dks uk rks {kfrxzLr djsa ,oa u gh mUgsa fxjkus rFkk u gh fookfnr lEifRr ij dksbZ uohu fuekZ.k djsa vkSj mlds orZeku Lo:i dks ;Fkkor cuk;s j[ksaA

rnuqlkj 34 x izFkkZuki= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mHk;i{k dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os vihy dks yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku fookfnr lEifr ij fLFkr fuekZ.kksa dks u rks fxjkos] u gh mUgsa {kfrxzLr djsa vkSj u gh fookfnr lEifRr ij dksbZ uohu fuekZ.k djsa rFk