IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.276 of 2003 JAI LAL RAI & ORS …… Appellants. Versus BRIJ KISHORE SINGH……Respondents. ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the respt No.1: Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate . 12 11.5.2010 Heard the learned counsel for appellants and the respondents under order 41 rule 11 C.P.C. 2. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the defendants first party and defendant second party appellants against the order dated 29.4.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge-Ist, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No.543/2001 whereby the learned court below allowed the injunction application and restrained the appellants no.1 to 7 from making any alteration in the land sold to them by defendants second party, i.e. appellant no.8 and also restrained the second party defendant, i.e., appellant no.8 with respect to transfer of land standing in the name of Sri Mahadeo Singh. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has restrained the appellant no.8 without service of notice on her. According to the learned counsel unless there was special circumstance no injunction could have been granted against the appellant no.8 without hearing her. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has wrongly allowed the application for injunction because even if there is transfer during the pendency of the suit the transfer will be hit by section 52 of the transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel 2 further submitted that the learned court below has wrongly found that the plaintiffs respondents have got prima facie case. The learned counsel further submitted that the address given by the plaintiff regarding appellant no.8 in the plaint is wrong and, therefore, no notice was served on her on the address where she is living. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the appellants no.1 to 7 are the transferee from the appellant no.8. The appellant no.8 is not the widow of Mahadeo Singh but she was transferring the suit property. Therefore, the suit was filed for setting aside the sale deed executed by her in favour of appellants no.1 to 7. After considering the above facts the learned court below after recording the findings regarding prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss granted injunction. As such there is no illegality in the order. 5. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant the address of the appellant no.8 was wrong in the plaint and, therefore, no notice was served upon her and without hearing her injunction order was passed against her. So far this contention is concerned if that is the fact then the appellant no.8 should have approached the trial court and could have pointed out this fact to the court below that notice was not served upon her. In this appeal this question of fact cannot be gone into. So far granting injunction is concerned admittedly the appellant no.8 had transferred the suit property to the appellants no.1 to 7. The prima facie finding is against the appellants. The injunction order was passed as far back 3 as in the year 2003 after long period of seven years, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, if any application is filed by the appellant no.8 regarding service of notice and passing of order without hearing her the trial court shall dispose it of according to law. 6. In the result, I find no merit in this Misc.appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )