IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Non appeal lies against consent order.
(2) Statement made by Counsel before a Court as recorded in a judgment/order cannot be challenged before a different forum.

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—The Appeal Suit arises out of a judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in a Suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for specific performance.

2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs sought for a direction on the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.3 and the appellant herein respectively) to execute a registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 after receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs in terms of an Agreement of Sale dated 22.03.2006.

3. The Trial Court decreed the Suit by the impugned judgment and directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration within 45 days from the date of the judgment and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants were given the liberty to withdraw the amount of the balance sale consideration deposited before the Court. The impugned judgment further provided that the plaintiff would be entitled to execute the Sale Deed through the process of the Court and be put in vacant possession of the suit schedule property if the defendants failed to execute and register the Sale Deed after deposit of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiffs within the time specified.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have raised a point of maintainability of the Appeal on two grounds; namely that the appellant/defendant No.2 is a purchaser pendente lite in violation of an order of injunction passed by the Trial Court on 23.12.2008 and that the appellant consented to a decree being passed on condition of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs depositing the balance sale consideration which was recorded by the Trial Court in the order dated 18.09.2015 in I.A.No.2059 of 2015.

5. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.2 as well as the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs in support of and against the maintainability of the present Appeal.

6. We feel it necessary to put the dates relevant to the adjudication in context before we come to the grounds raised on the maintainability of the Appeal Suit.

7. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the Suit in the Trial Court for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 22.03.2006 in respect of the suit schedule property. Pending the Suit, the Trial Court granted ad interim injunction on 23.12.2008 restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating or creating any interest in the suit schedule property in favour of any third party. The interim order subsisted till the impugned judgment which was delivered on 18.09.2015.

8. The defendant No.1 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.2 (appellant) by executing 2 registered Sale Deeds on 10.01.2011 and 19.08.2011. The defendant No.2 purchased the property from the defendant No.1 and filed I.A.No.377 of 2011 on 05.02.2013 seeking permission to represent the defendant No.1 which was dismissed by the Trial Court.

9. On coming to know that the defendant No.2 had purchased the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.140 of 2014 on 07.07.2014 for impleading the defendant No.2/appellant which was allowed. The defendant No.2 thereafter filed his Written Statement in September, 2014 stating that the defendant No.2/appellant does not have any objection in executing the Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and prayed for a direction on the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court.

10. The defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.1321 of 2013 for a direction on the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration to show their readiness and willingness and the defendant No.2 expressed his consent to the relief sought for by the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs filed two I.As. on 20.04.2015 requesting the Trial Court to pass an executable decree in view of the admission made by