IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.533 of 2011 Date of decision : 31.05.2011 Balraj Singh and others ….Appellants Versus Kaur Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The appellants are vendees from Joginder Kaur, the appellant in RSA No.3317 of 1984. This appeal has been filed after a delay of more than 26 years 3 months and 24 days. The appellants in the instant appeal were shown to be respondents, without their being party before the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. They were projected as respondents for the first time in the memo of parties before this court. Despite a patent error in the memo of parties, the appeal was cleared by the Registry for hearing. The appellants purchased the property in question during the pendency of the suit despite the injunction order dated 11.4.1980, passed by the learned trial Court, restraining the appellant, Joginder Kaur (in RSA No.3317 of 1984), not to alienate the property, which reads as under:- “11.4.80. Present:- Counsel for the applicant. Order. Heard. The case of the applicant is that the suit property is the co-parcenary property of the Joint Hindu Family and that the respondents/defendants be restrained from alienating the same. His suit is also for declaration that mutation No.441 dated 31.7.70 regarding the transfer of ownership of ½ share of the suit land with defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 is the result of conspiracy and that he is not bound by the same. Through the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. the applicant has sought the relief that the respondents be restrained from alienating the co-parcenary property as they have no right to alienate the same. This application is duly supported by an affidavit of Surjit Kaur next friend of plaintiff as plaintiff/applicant is minor. Besides this applicant has brought on record a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 of village Narinderpura and copy of mutation No.441 sanctioned regarding the transfer of ownership of ½ share of 343 kanals 11 marlas of land. Plaintiff/applicant is the son of defendant/respondent No.1. It is also in the affidavit that the suit land along with other property was the co-parcenary property of the joint family and it was in the hands of Gulab Singh father of defendant No.1. At this stage, after perusal of the file I find that there is a prima facie case in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the parties to maintain strict status quo regarding the suit property till 22.4.1980. Notices of this ad-interim injunction be given to the respondents on payment of P.F. which should not be extended till the disposal of the suit. Objections, if any, on 22.4.80 at 10-00 A.M.” The appellants purchased the property in question during the pendency of litigation in the year 1982. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which is applicable to this case, reads as under:- “52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.- During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise deal with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceedings has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.” The present appeal is accompanied by the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 26 years 3 months and 26 days. As the appellants were not party at the stage of trial and before the First Appellate Court, therefore, they are strangers to the litigation and appeal on their behalf is not maintainable. Therefore, the question of condoning the delay is immaterial. In view of the above and for the reasons recorded in Regular Second Appeal No.3317 of 1984, of even date, which shall be read as part of this Regular Second Appeal No.533 of 2011, CM No.1422-C of 2011 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been declined and Regular Second Appeal No.533 of 2011 is dismissed. 31.05.2011 atulsethi ( JINTENDRA CHAUHAN ) JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes / No.