JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.10.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC (though wrongly titled as Order 8, Rule 12 CPC) has been allowed and application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and Order I, Rule 10 CPC have been partly allowed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court has allowed the application under Order 8, Rule 12 CPC despite the fact that no provision like Order 8, Rule 12 CPC exists on the statute book, deserves to be quashed on this count alone. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent from the tenor of the application filed by the respondent and the order passed by the trial court that the application was in fact under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in directing the petitioner in producing the original Will before the trial court, a photocopy whereof was already on record of the trial court. 5. So far as the order passed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and Order I, Rule 10 CPC is concerned, it is apparent that after the suit was filed by the respondents seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner, the property in dispute was transferred by the petitioner and therefore, the application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC was filed seeking to implead the purchaser of the suit property as party defendant in the suit. 6. The very fact that the respondent had filed the suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner and the fact that the suit property was sold by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, the respondents are entitled to seek injunction against the said purchaser of the suit property as well on account of the said transaction, which happened during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the impleadment of said party as defendant cannot be questioned. 7. 7. However, so far as the relief prayed by the respondent in the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking to question the validity of the sale executed by the petitioner is concerned, though the trial court refused amendment as para 6(A), it permitted the respondent to amend prayer (kha) seeking restoration of status quo ante. 8. A bare look at the plaint and the relief (kha) (Annex.1) reveals that the mandatory injunction had already been sought by the plaintiff seeking status quo ante in case any change takes place during the pendency of the suit and therefore, apparently the permission to insert the portion in prayer (kha) of the suit was superfluous as in any case the said prayer was already existing in the suit. 9. In that view of the matter, the order passed on the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to the said extent cannot be sustained and the same, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the trial court dated 8.10.2013 is modified only to the extent that the part of the said order whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been partly allowed shall stand set aside. However, the said setting aside would not effect the consequential changes to be made in the plaint on account of impleadment of defendant No.2.The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition partly allowed. *******