JUDGMENT : M.L. Mehta, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks assailing of order dated 17.05.2012 of Additional District Judge, Central-07, Delhi, whereby he directed maintenance of status quo by the parties with respect to title of the suit property bearing No. A-20A, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi till the disposal of the suit. 2. The petitioner is defendant No. 5 in the suit filed by the respondent Inder Raj. The petitioner had purchased this suit property from defendant No. 2 Kuldeep Kaur who in turn had purchased the same from defendant No. 1 Malik Chand Grover. Inder Raj and Malik Chand Grover (henceforth referred to as “Malik Chand”) are in closed relations and in joint business. They were allotted one plot admeasuring 450 sq yards being plot bearing No. A-20, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. They are litigating as regard to their shares in the said plot. The portion of the plot which has been sold by Malik Chand to defendant No. 2 and who in turn had sold it to the petitioner (defendant No. 5) is 270 sq. yards out of total plot of 450 sq. yards. The respondent Inder Raj had filed a suit of injunction against Malik Chand in the year 2003 restraining him from selling any portion of the said plot A-20. That suit is pending in the Trial Court. Thereafter he filed the instant suit being suit No. 259/2005 against Malik Chand, Kuldeep Kaur and the present petitioner besides the DDA and the MCD. It was in this suit that order of status quo has been passed by the learned ADJ which is assailed by the petitioner in the instant petition. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that the respondent Inder Raj earlier filed a writ petition in this Court disputing the bifurcation of the plot admeasuring 450 sq. yards into two plots as plot No. A-20-A measuring 270 sq. yards and plot No. A-20-B measuring 180 sq. yards. It was submitted that this bifurcation was approved by Lieutenant Governor. This was challenged by the respondent by way of a Writ being W.P.(C) 7671/2007 which came to be dismissed on 5th August 2008. LPA against the same also came to be dismissed by this Court on 1.12.2008. SLP against the said order also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19.10.2009. 4. This was challenged by the respondent by way of a Writ being W.P.(C) 7671/2007 which came to be dismissed on 5th August 2008. LPA against the same also came to be dismissed by this Court on 1.12.2008. SLP against the said order also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19.10.2009. 4. It was the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the matter has already been decided against the respondent Inder Raj, he was left with no right of any kind in the plot admeasuring 270 sq. yards which was numbered as A-22-A on the approval of the bifurcation by Lt. Governor. 5. It is true that the writ petition filed by the respondent Inder Raj as also the LPA and the SLP were dismissed by this Court and the Supreme Court, as informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, it is noted that while dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court passed the order as under: “We find no reason to interfere. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the order of the Lt. Governor and the dismissal of the petitioners writ petition and LPA will not come in the way of the petitioner pursuing the pending suits.” 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that though the SLP was dismissed, but the Supreme Court had permitted the respondent to pursue the pending suit. The interpretation that was sought to be given to the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that what was decided by this Court in the writ petition and the LPA qua the suit property, could not be re-agitated in the pending suit, is entirely misplaced. If it was so, the Supreme Court would have clearly passed such an order. Giving any other interpretation to the clear and unambiguous order of the Supreme Court would be reading in between which is not permissible. If it was so, the Supreme Court would have clearly passed such an order. Giving any other interpretation to the clear and unambiguous order of the Supreme Court would be reading in between which is not permissible. The fact of the matter is that one suit filed by the respondent in 2003 seeking restraint against defendant No. 2 Malik Chand from selling the property and another suit filed against Malik Chand, Kuldeep Kaur and also the petitioner herein involved wider issues wherein he has even disputed the very basis of bifurcating of the plot into two equal shares by the DDA and also the right of Malik Chand to have 270 sq. yards as against his 180 sq. yards. He has also disputed that the said plot admeasuring 450 sq. yards was in the joint names and being on leasehold could not be sold by Malik Chand. It was also his case that no unauthorized construction on any part of the plot was there, whereas the present petitioner who is a builder, has started carrying unauthorized construction therein and for which he has also received show cause notice from the DDA on 30.08.2005. 7. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP, the decision of the Lt. Governor and also the decision of this Court will not come in the way of respondent Inder Raj to puruse his pending suit. What is the effect of the decision of this Court in return of the LPA will be given effect by the trial court which is to decide suit No. 259/2005 of respondent Inder Raj. 8. Having seen that he has raised various triable issues which need to be determined and the fact that the suit plot has been sold by Malik Chand to Kuldeep Kaur and who has further sold the same to the petitioner, and further that the petitioner is in the process of doing unauthorized construction, all this is bound to have ultimate effect on the rights of Inder Raj. 9. As per section 52 of Transfer of Property Act any immovable property subject matter of the pending suit or procedure could not be transferred or dealt with by any party so as to affect the right of any of the parties thereto except under the authority of the Court where the suit is pending. 9. As per section 52 of Transfer of Property Act any immovable property subject matter of the pending suit or procedure could not be transferred or dealt with by any party so as to affect the right of any of the parties thereto except under the authority of the Court where the suit is pending. That being the legal proposition, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the Additional District Judge in directing to maintain status quo of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. The petition has no merit. Dismissed.