―14. The court is not at this stage adjudicating the actual portions purchased by both sets of parties. However, if any decree is passed against Defendants No. l and 2, who are now ex-parte, since the proposed Applicants claim through the said Defendants, the judgment and decree would be binding on them. The final order which would be passed would undoubtedly affect the rights of the proposed-applicants in respect of the overlapping portions of the suit property. Such parties would then be necessary parties as also proper parties to the suit. In the present case, the agreement to sell between the proposed Applicants -and Defendant No. 4 was executed two days prior to the filing of the suit i.e. 25th September, 2014. Thus, the transaction was not in violation of the restraint order passed by this Court, though the sale deed was executed thereafter. In fact, as of 20th October, 2014, when the sale deeds were executed, it is not even clear whether Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 were even served with the, summons in the suit. In fact, the service report of 19th February, 2015 records that Defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 are un-served. This completely changes the character of the sale in favour of the proposed Applicant. The sale cannot be characterized as being clandestine or a result of contumacious conduct. The order passed by the Joint Registrar cannot thus be faulted with.‖
