IMPORTANT POINT
Alienation will in no manner affect rights of other party under any decree passed in suit unless property was alienated with permission of Court.

Rajesh H.Shukla, J.—Rule. Learned advocate, Shri P.R. Thakkar waives service of notice of Rule for respondent nos.1 to 5.

2. The present Civil Application is filed by the applicant-third party seeking leave to appeal to file the Second Appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 2004 by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bharuch dated 23.01.2015 on the grounds stated in the application.

3. As referred to in the details, Special Civil Suit No. 333 of 1993 came to be filed before the court of learned Civil Judge, Bharuch and it was dismissed in September 2004. The same was carried by way of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1995 before the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch and the same Appeal was allowed, by which the alienation and transfer of the suit land was restrained pending the hearing of the Suit. Though ultimately the Special Civil Suit No. 333 of 1993 came to be dismissed as stated herein above, against which First Appeal No. 82 of 2004 was filed though no stay was operating in the First Appeal. Thereafter further transactions took place as stated in detail by way of registered sale deed executed by Kashiben in favour of Ismailbhai in the year 2004 and thereafter in the year 2008 Kashiben executed the registered sale deed dated 23.8.2008 in favour of Mohammad Ismail Patel and the entry has been mutated being Revenue Entry No. 7104. Again, said Mohammad Ismail executed a registered sale deed in favour of Siraj Hasan Vijaysinh Rana in the year 2012. The said Siraj Hasan Vijaysinh Rana further sold the land in question in favour of Usmanbhai by registered sale deed dated 29.5.2012 for which entry was mutated being Revenue Entry No. 7309. First Appeal No. 82 of 2004, which was filed against the judgment and order in Civil Suit NO.333 of 1993, was allowed. During the pendency of the proceedings, there was no injunction or stay, resulting in series of transactions, and therefore, the present Applicant - Third Party claims to be a bona fide purchaser by registered sale deed, and that the subsequent purchaser, without knowledge, has filed the application seeking leave to appeal on the grounds stated in the application.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Shri S.I. Nanavati appearing with learned advocate, Shri Digant Popat for the applicant third party and learned advocate, Shri P.R. Thakkar for the respondent nos.1 to 5.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Nanavati has submitted that the notice has been served to respondent nos.1 to 5 and the heirs of respondent no.9. Similarly he submitted that respondent nos.6, 7 and 10 have expired during the pendency of the First Appeal and respondent no.8 has expired during the pendency of the Suit and therefore the Suit would have stand abated.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Nanavati has referred to the background of the facts wherein he has traced the history regarding the transaction between respondent nos.6, 7 and 8 - Original co-owners having executed an agreement to sell in the year 1990 in favour of Indravadan and thereafter the same co-owners executed the registered sale deed in favour of one Kashiben i.e. respondent no.10 and respondent no.9 Dahyabhai, whose heirs are at 9.1 to 9.5.

7. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Nanavati referred to the papers and paper book, which has been submitted and submitted that suit for specific performance being Special Civil Suit NO.333/1993 came to be dismissed on 08.09.2004 and Regular Civil Appeal No.82/2004 was filed but no stay was granted and in the meanwhile pending appeal, the respondent nos.6 and 7 expired on 29.07.2013 and 27.03.2005 respectively and registered sale deed in favour of Kashiben by the original owner was executed. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Nanavati submitted that the sale deed which was executed, has not been challenged and only Suit for injunction was filed, where the injunction was not granted. He submitted that similarly as there was no injunction, further transaction took