A pending impleadment application does not warrant setting aside an interim injunction preserving disputed property.

The petitioner, a subsequent purchaser of the suit property, was not a party to O.S. No. 111/2022, a suit for declaration and partition.

The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 had been procured by misrepresentation, undue influence and fraud.

The Trial Court restrained defendants 1 to 3 from creating further transactions or encumbrances over the property; the First Appellate Court affirmed that order.

The petitioner sought to challenge both orders while his application to be impleaded in the suit remained pending.

The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and concerned an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The Court applied the principle that an order preserving the suit property pending adjudication may be maintained where the underlying title and the circumstances of the transfer are disputed; it cited no precedent or further statutory test

The Court noted that the plaintiff’s claim challenged the sale deed to defendant No. 1 on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, and considered preservation of the property pending the suit appropriate

The petitioner’s later purchase and non-joinder did not warrant setting aside the injunction at that stage: he was not yet a party, and his impleadment application remained pending.

The Court therefore declined supervisory interference, while directing the Trial Court to decide that application in accordance with law

It directed the Trial Court to consider the petitioner’s impleadment application in accordance with law and left him at liberty to seek any further permissible relief before that court