`THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2745 of 2023

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05-09-2023 passed in I.A.No.419 of 2023 in O.S.No.128 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Medhcal.

2. The petitioner herein is the proposed defendant No.2 in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 as plaintiffs against 4^th respondent herein for grant of relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12-04-2021 entered into by and between respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4.

3. Petitioner contends that he is the purchaser of land to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts from the 4^th respondent under a registered sale deed executed on 31-05-2023 while respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein claim to have filed a suit against 4^th respondent seeking specific performance of the agreement sale entered into by them with respondent No.4.

4. It is also the further case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed I.A.No.615 of 2023 to implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.2 in the aforesaid suit and the said Interlocutory Application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Order I Rule 10 CPC is pending consideration.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein having filed Interlocutory Application to implead him as proposed defendant in the suit, have obtained an order of status quo in the underlying Interlocutory Application against the petitioner herein over the suit schedule property till disposal of Interlocutory Application filed for impleading the petitioner herein as proposed defendant without he being brought on record in the suit and also without being made a party in the underlying Interlocutory Application.

6. The petitioner contends that the trial Court even before adjudicating I.A.No.615 of 2023 filed to implead the present petitioner as a necessary party to the suit or not, had passed the order of status quo only against the petitioner/2^nd respondent even before he is brought on record without considering the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein by the underlying Interlocutory Application have sought relief against the

1^st respondent/defendant viz., the 4^th respondent herein.

7. Petitioner contends that the trial Court erred in passing the impugned order without assigning any reasons, and thus, the impugned is an erroneous order and is against the principle of law.

8. I have taken note of contentions urged.

9. A perusal of the cause title of the impugned order shows that only 4^th respondent herein is shown as respondent in the Interlocutory Application. The petitioner herein is not shown as a party to the Interlocutory Application. However, the impugned order passed directing to maintain status quo reads as under:

“Counter not filed. Interlocutory Application U/o.I Rule 10 CPC is filed and pending. However, as submitted by learned counsel and in view of nature of suit being a specific performance and to curtail further litigation, the respondent No.2/purchaser directed to maintain status quo over schedule property till the disposal of IA.No.615/2023 and 616/2023. Call with suit

04-10-2023”.

10. It is interesting to note that though the trial Court had noted that an Interlocutory Application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is

filed and is pending however, passed an order against a person who is not a party to the suit. Further, if such an Interlocutory Application to bring the proper parties on record is pending, the trial Court ought to have first decided the said Interlocutory Application, instead of passing the order against the proposed respondent.

11. Further, a reading of the Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC would also indicate that an order of injunction can be passed against a party to the suit, and since the petitioner herein is not a party to the suit on the date of passing the impugned docket order, this Court is of the view that the said order is ex facie erroneous.

12. Accordingly, the im