JUDGMENT : (Biren Vaishnav, J.) : 1. This Civil Application for Leave to Appeal has been filed by the applicants against the judgement and decree dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned Court of 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Ahmedabad Rural) in Special Civil Suit No. 323 of 2010. Together with the Leave to Appeal, a Civil Application for condonation of delay in filing the Leave to Appeal was also filed. 1.1 The civil application for Leave to Appeal was extensively heard by a Division Bench of this Court. Considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant based on the facts stated in the memo of the civil application for Leave to Appeal, the Division Bench of this court passed an order dated 02.04.2024. While issuing notice to the respondents in the Leave to Appeal where, one Girish Natwarlal Patel was not a party arrayed as a respondent in the appeal, the Court granted interim relief in terms of para 6BB till the next date of hearing. Para 6BB of the civil application for Leave to Appeal which was added on the very date on which the arguments on the civil application for Leave to Appeal were heard reads as under: “6(BB) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain Girish Natwarlal Patel or any other person acting on his behalf, from entering upon and/or from selling, transferring, mortgaging, leasing, creating third party rights, creating encumbrances or dealing with land bearing Survey No. 138 (previously Survey No. 232), situated in Mouje: Jodhpur, Taluka: Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, in any manner whatsoever.” 1.2 Therefore, by way of the amendment which is referred to hereinabove, one Girish Natwarlal Patel was restrained from dealing with the property in question as set out in the prayer clause reproduced hereinabove. Though not being a party, Registry did issue a writ of the civil application for Leave to Appeal to Girish Natwarlal Patel informing him of the stay granted by this court. 1.3 As recorded in the order dated 02.04.2024, the question whether it is necessary to file an application for condonation of delay was argued and considered. Reference was made to an order dated 17.03.2020 passed in Civil Application No. 1474 of 2020, which reads as under: “Rule returnable on 15.04.2020. 1.3 As recorded in the order dated 02.04.2024, the question whether it is necessary to file an application for condonation of delay was argued and considered. Reference was made to an order dated 17.03.2020 passed in Civil Application No. 1474 of 2020, which reads as under: “Rule returnable on 15.04.2020. Normally before adjudication of the issue of delay, this Court would not issue an injunction; however, in view of peculiar facts emerging from the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a title holder of the suit property and has not conveyed the title either directly or through power of attorney; and that the opponents in collusion; instituted a suit and invited a decree on compromise as also they in collusion instituted the execution petition whereupon despite the original defendant having no title to the disputed property was able to convey the applicant's title, the opponents are directed to maintain the status-quo with regard to the title and encumbrance of the suit property till the returnable date. Direct service is permitted.” 1.4 It was in light of this observation of the Co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 02.04.2024, that we have considered the application for condonation of delay together with the application for leave to appeal. 2 Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Venu Nanavaty, learned advocate for Mr. Girish Natwarlal Patel, vehemently objected to the continuance of the interim relief. It was brought to our notice that when the interim relief was granted by this court, the civil application for impleading Mr. Patel as a party respondent and the civil application for additional evidence filed by the applicants of the civil application for Leave to Appeal were not listed. A submission was therefore made that without a formal impleadment of Mr. Girish Natwarlal Patel, the Registry would not accept any appearance on his behalf. However, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the interim relief dated 02.04.2024 could not have been granted much less in the absence of Mr. Patel as a party respondent without he being so impleaded and particularly when the civil application for Leave to Appeal with an application for condonation of delay was yet to be granted. 2.1 It is in the background of these circumstances that we have to consider whether the interim order dated 02.04.2024 granted by the applicant for leave to appeal be continued. 2.1 It is in the background of these circumstances that we have to consider whether the interim order dated 02.04.2024 granted by the applicant for leave to appeal be continued. 3 Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent based on a note of submissions submits as under: (a) It is an undisputed fact that Purshottambhai Punjabhai, the erstwhile original owner, sold the Suit Land to Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala on 29.08.1975 (“Sale deed of 1975”) (Pages 291-306 PB). It is an established principle of law that a seller loses all right, title and interest in the land sold by him/her after the sale and that any subsequent transfer of the property which is already been sold earlier is bad and void ab initio. This proposition has been upheld and reiterated as recently as on 19.07.2024 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023 (Paragraph 35). (b) The Sale Deed of 1975 is a registered sale deed which puts everyone to notice of the transaction under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The said Sale Deed has not been set aside and continues to be valid. The legal heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai, whose rights had been severed by the Sale Deed of 1975, had no right, title or interest in the Suit Property either to execute the Agreement to Sell dated 11.09.1996, or to enter into consent terms or to execute the sale deed. (c) It is sufficiently established on record that Special Civil Suit No. 322 of 2012 is a collusive suit. It is obvious that since the legal heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai could not have conveyed a valid title in the Suit Land to anyone, the parties to the Suit took recourse to a court of law and misused the instrumentality of court to execute the sale deed. The consent decree is ex facie made at the behest of persons who had no right, title or interest to convey the Suit Land and is based on consent terms which are explicitly collusive. The consent decree is ex facie made at the behest of persons who had no right, title or interest to convey the Suit Land and is based on consent terms which are explicitly collusive. The fact that the Suit is collusive and not adversarial is established from the fact that about a month and a half before filing of the Suit, on 22.03.2012, the legal heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel, a member and erstwhile Chairman of Respondent No. 1 – Geetagram Society, which was the Plaintiff and that the said Girish Natwarlal Patel also appeared on behalf of the legal heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai in the Suit by filing Vakalatnama on their behalf as their Power of Attorney holder (Page 59 PB). It is evident that the Appellants, though necessary and proper, were deliberately not joined as parties to the Suit, despite the fact that the Plaintiff knew about the land standing in the name of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF. This is clear from the document it produced at Mark 3/1 being Form No. 7 bearing the name of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF as also from the averments made in the Plaint. The Plaintiff also knew that the entry reflecting Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF’s name in the revenue records continued even while undertaking the sale in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel on 18.06.2022, which is evident from the Sale Deed. It is also established on record that Geetagram Cooperative Housing Society and Girish Natwarlal Patel acted in concert, that Girish Natwarlal Patel was privy to the litigation since prior to the institution of the Suit and that the parties have managed to use Respondent No. 1 – Geetagram Society as a layer. (d) The Suit Land was purchased 29.08.1975 by Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala. It is later entered in the name of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF from Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala vide Mutation Entry No. 7597 posted on 20.11.1997 and certified on 15.01.1998. The Appellants are members of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF, and include all legal heirs of Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala. The Suit Land belongs to the Appellants and the Appellants are aggrieved by the collusive decree dated 29.04.2013. Since the Appellants were not parties to the Suit, this Appeal is filed along with a Civil Application seeking Leave to Appeal. The Appellants are members of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF, and include all legal heirs of Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala. The Suit Land belongs to the Appellants and the Appellants are aggrieved by the collusive decree dated 29.04.2013. Since the Appellants were not parties to the Suit, this Appeal is filed along with a Civil Application seeking Leave to Appeal. The First Appeal had been filed along with five Civil Applications, being (i) Leave to Appeal; (ii) Condonation of Delay; (iii) Stay; (iv) Impleadment of Girish Natwarlal Patel; (v) Additional Evidence, which were filed on the same date, i.e. 28.02.2024. This Hon’ble Court’s Registry, however, did not accept the Civil Application for Condonation of Delay, suggesting that in view of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Application No. 1 of 2015 in F/First Appeal No. 337 of 2015, and in Civil Application No. 1474 of 2020 in F/Civil Application No. 8922 of 2020 dated 17.03.2020, 06.01.2020 and 28.04.2022, a third-party challenging a collusive decree is not required to file an application to condone delay. (e) The First Appeal and CA for Leave to Appeal were listed for hearing on 20.03.2024 at No. 1. The First Appeal was being adjourned as the Paperbook was not received and the Appellants requested that the CA for Condonation of Delay be permitted to be filed and circulated. Accordingly the First Appeal was adjourned to 22.03.2024, i.e. Friday and listed at No. 53. The matter did not reach on 22.03.2024 and was adjourned to 26.03.2024. In the meantime, on 21.03.2024, the Appellants received a response to their RTI application which showed that Girish Natwarlal Patel was closely associated with Respondent No. 1 – Geetagram Society. On the same date an Additional Affidavit was sworn in, bringing on record the documents received in RTI. The First Appeal, along with the two Civil Applications were taken up for hearing on 02.04.2024. The advocate for the Appellants pressed for interim orders and also moved an amendment praying for interim orders against Girish Natwarlal Patel as it was established that there was commonality between Girish Natwarlal Patel and Respondent No. 1 – Geetagram Society and that the said Society was merely used to create a layer. The advocate for the Appellants pressed for interim orders and also moved an amendment praying for interim orders against Girish Natwarlal Patel as it was established that there was commonality between Girish Natwarlal Patel and Respondent No. 1 – Geetagram Society and that the said Society was merely used to create a layer. The Appellants relied on this Hon’ble Court’s order in Civil Application No. 1474 of 2020 in F/Civil Application No. 8922 of 2020 dated 17.03.2020, to emphasis the fact that this Hon’ble Court does grant interim relief even while considering an application for Leave to Appeal when the decree is based on compromise and is collusive. It is established from record that Girish Natwarlal Patel is the same as Respondent No. 1 – Geetagram Society, which is the Original Plaintiff. It is also established that Girish Natwarlal Patel is the Power of Attorney holder of the Defendants and has evidently purchased the Suit Land worth over INR 10 crores for INR 50 lakhs, presuming it is paid. Since, Respondent No. 1 had agreed for conveyance in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel and the execution proceedings were disposed of, any stay against 6 Respondent No. 1 - Geetagram Society or the original Defendants would be meaningless. Girish Natwarlal Patel could not impleaded directly as a partyRespondent in the First Appeal as he was not a party to the Suit, though involved and beneficiary of the collusive decree. Hence, a Civil Application for his impleadment was filed which would have been heard after grant of Leave to Appeal. In such circumstances, an amendment was made to add a relief in the Prayers of the Civil Application for Leave to Appeal and a request was made to injunct and restrain Girish Natwarlal Patel from dealing with the Suit Land. This Hon’ble Court considered the aforesaid facts and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 to the effect that collusion with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio and in such circumstances, when fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud and therefore, the Court should not perpetuate the fraud. Not granting interim relief against Girish Natwarlal Patel would have allowed him to deal with the Suit Land freely, creating multiplicity of proceedings and perpetuating the fraud which was prima facie established. Therefore, the order granting stay against Girish Natwarlal Patel in CA No. 1408 of 2024 (Leave to Appeal) dated 02.04.2024 is absolutely justified and within this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction. (f) It is pertinent to note that Respondent No. 1 - Geetagram Society as well as the legal heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai, all of whom who have direct links with Girish Natwarlal Patel, have been served but have chosen not to appear. It is Girish Natwarlal Patel who has appeared alone though he has commonality with Respondent No. 1 – Geetagram Cooperative Housing Society, as he was its Chairman as well as a Member and he also is the Power of Attorney holder of the heirs of the original owner, Purshottambhai Punjabhai. The conduct of Girish Natwarlal Patel continues to be questionable. (g) The land has always vested in Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala or Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF since 29.08.1975. Whether the land is in the name of Vikrambhai Palkhiwala, in his individual capacity, or in the name of 7 Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF is a matter that concerns only the Palkhiwala family. So far as Purshottambhai Punjabhai and his legal heirs are concerned, they ceased to have any right, title or interest in the Suit Land after 29.08.1975. Mutation Entry No. 3106 (Page 308-309 PB), recording the sale in favour of Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala stays valid and has not been set aside. Not certifying Mutation Entry No. 4018 posted on 10.06.1980 will have no bearing on the title of Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala over the Suit Land. The only effect, if any, of this Entry would be that the revenue authorities did not consider recording it as belonging to the HUF. This, however cannot be construed to mean that the sale in favour of Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala dated 29.08.1975, would stand nullified or that it can result in revival of any right, title or interest in the Suit Land for the legal heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai. On 20.11.1997, the revenue authorities accepted that the Suit Land should be shown as of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF by posting Mutation Entry No. 7597, which was certified on 15.01.1998. On 20.11.1997, the revenue authorities accepted that the Suit Land should be shown as of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF by posting Mutation Entry No. 7597, which was certified on 15.01.1998. Undoubtedly, proceedings under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Act”) were closed vide order dated 14.02.1994. Other proceedings which were initiated under the Section 76A of the Act also came to be closed vide order dated 28.10.1991. As recorded in Mutation Entry No. 6506, posted on 05.08.1992, the mutation entries pertain to recording of HUF as an Occupant and a recording of various orders which were passed under the Act. None of the aforesaid orders result in creating any right, title or interest in the name of Purshottambhai Punjabhai or his legal heirs. 4. Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr. Girish Natwarlal Patel would submit that an ex-parte ad-interim relief could not have been granted against Mr. Girish Natwarlal Patel who was not a party to the proceedings. 4.1 He would submit that when the order was passed on the civil application for Leave to Appeal the application for impleadment of Mr. Girish Patel namely CA No. 1 of 2024 and CA No. 3 of 2024 for additional evidence though filed were not circulated on the board on the date when the order was passed. 4.2 He would submit that by adopting an entirely novel practice of seeking interim relief by a proposed draft amendment, a prayer was made restraining a person by naming him against whom a relief was granted without he being joined as a party. He would therefore submit the Mr. Girish Patel cannot be represented through his advocate as he is not a party in the application for Leave to Appeal unless the civil application for Leave to Appeal is allowed and so is in the civil application for impleadment a situation had arisen that a request was made to vacate the order in the circumstances that it was granted. 4.3 Mr. Desai would submit that reading of the order dated 02.04.2024 would indicate that certain facts including dates and events which were not the part of the record should have been placed for consideration by the applicants which was not done as a result of which it can be reasonably stated that there was a deliberate and intentionally suppression of facts by the applicants. Reading the title of the memo of the civil application for Leave to Appeal, Mr. Desai would submit that even in the appeal it was not the case of the applicants that they are prosecuting the appeal on behalf of Punjalal Mohanlal HUF nor is it there contention that the entry in the revenue records as that of Punjalal Mohanlal HUF is based on a deed of a Hindu Undivided Family. He would classify his submissions based on Entry No. 4018, the execution proceedings, the stand of Mr. Vikram Punja Palkhiwala in the revenue proceedings and also with regard to a consent decree where it was sought to be submitted by the applicants that a fraud is committed by the respondents and Shri Girish Patel by way of a compromise decree which is collusive. Submission would also be made on the aspect of revenue entries. The classified written note of submissions under various heads as submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the non party respondent reads as under: a. In Tenancy Case no.83 of 1989, vide order dtd.06.01.1990, the Mamlatdar and ALT came to conclusion that there is breach of S.63 of the Tenancy 6 Act, sale transaction dtd. 29.08.1975 is declared illegal and Vikram Punja is declared as non-agriculturist Therefore sale deed of 29.08.1975 is declared invalid b. After this order dtd. 06.01.1990, Entry no. 6321, dtd.29.10.1991 records the land as ‘Sarkar Daakhal’ c. This order dtd.06.01.1990 is challenged in Tenancy Appeal no.116/1990 filed by Purshottam Punja and Ganot Revision Case no.588 of 1990 filed by Vikram Punja d. On dt.28.10.1991, Ganot Revision Case no.588 of 1990 is allowed, order dtd.06.01.1990 is quashed and matter is remanded and if seller and purchase agree land to be brought to original position within 3 months or else it will vest in State Govt. e. This order dtd.28.10.1991 is challenged by Vikram Punja before Ld.GRT in Revision Application no.2 of 1992. f. On dt.16.03.1993, In Ganot Appeal no.116 of 1990 (filed by Vikram Punja), order dtd.28.10.1991 is followed- if seller and purchaser agree land to be brought to original position within 3 months or else it will vest in State Govt. Hence, Entry no.6624 dtd.29.03.1993 records this order and land is shown in the name of Purshottam Punja (original owner). f. On dt.16.03.1993, In Ganot Appeal no.116 of 1990 (filed by Vikram Punja), order dtd.28.10.1991 is followed- if seller and purchaser agree land to be brought to original position within 3 months or else it will vest in State Govt. Hence, Entry no.6624 dtd.29.03.1993 records this order and land is shown in the name of Purshottam Punja (original owner). g. 03.07.1995- Revision Application no.2 of 1992 before GRT is withdrawn by Vikram Palkhiwala which challenged order dtd.28.10.1991 whereby option was given to the seller and purchaser. Resultantly, Vikram Palkhiwala foregoes his claim over the land in question and effectively gives away his claim by registered sale deed dtd.28.08.1975 recorded in Entry no.3106. h. 30.03.1996 – Above stated Withdrawal was sought to be reopened by application before GRT, the same is rejected. 4.4 He relied on a judgement in the case of Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr vs. Kanji Ravariya alias Kanji and Another in Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023 dated 19.07.2024. He would press into service para 35 of the decision to submit that even a subsequent purchaser even if unaware of the prior sale cannot be considered bona fide because the vendor no longer had the legal right to sell the property. The vendor’s deceitful conduct and the pre-existing transfer of rights would prevent unjust enrichment through such fraudulent transfer. 5 Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputed that an interim relief in the nature of restraining a non party to the appeal at a stage of an application for Leave to Appeal has been granted against one Mr. Girish Natwarlal Patel. This was done by way of an amendment in the civil application for Leave to Appeal by adding paragraph no. 6BB which we have quoted hereinabove. It is also a matter of record that when the civil application for Leave to Appeal was heard on 02.04.2024, neither the application for impleading Mr. Girish Patel nor the application for leading additional evidence on behalf of the applicants for leave to appeal were on board. The suit land with which the present appeal is concerned is Survey No. 232 subsequently numbered as Survey no. 138 situated in Vejalpur now in Jodhpur Sub-District, District Ahmedabad admesauring 1 Acre and 7 Gunthas are of 4755 sq. mtrs. It was the submission of learned counsel Ms. The suit land with which the present appeal is concerned is Survey No. 232 subsequently numbered as Survey no. 138 situated in Vejalpur now in Jodhpur Sub-District, District Ahmedabad admesauring 1 Acre and 7 Gunthas are of 4755 sq. mtrs. It was the submission of learned counsel Ms. Megha Jani who appeared for the applicants on 02.04.2024 that the predecessor of the applicants Mr. Vikram Palkhiwala had on 29.08.1975 purchased the suit land from the original owner Mr. Purshottam Punjabhai by a registered sale deed. On 06.11.1975, Entry No. 3106 was posted recording the transfer of the suit land in favour of Mr. Vikram Palkhiwala. 5.1 It was then argued on behalf of the applicants that the name of the applicants’ predecessor as the owner of the subject property continued to be reflected in the records. An application was made by Mr. Vikram Palkhiwala to consider the suit land as the property of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF. This entry was certified as Entry No. 7597 as a result of which the HUF’s name was posted in place of Mr. Vikram Palkhiwala. 5.2 A brief mention was made to the proceeding under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 by the applicant’s predecessor and it was submitted that despite such proceedings Entry No. 7597 which was posted on 20.11.1997 in the name of HUF continued to remain and the land in question all throughout was running in the name of the predecessor of the applicants. 5.3 It was next submitted that despite such a sale of land in favour of HUF behind the back of the applicants an agreement to sell dated 11.09.1996 was entered into by the respondents no. 2 to 5 to sell the land to one Geetagram Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’). No sale deed could have been entered into by the descendents of Purshottam Punja to transfer the land in favour of the Society when in the year 1975 an agreement to sell was already executed with Mr. Vikrambhai Palkhiwala and the property continued to be shown throughout in the revenue records in the name of the HUF. Recording a further submission that the Society after 16 years of the agreement to sell filed a civil suit no. 322 of 2012 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.09.1996. Vikrambhai Palkhiwala and the property continued to be shown throughout in the revenue records in the name of the HUF. Recording a further submission that the Society after 16 years of the agreement to sell filed a civil suit no. 322 of 2012 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.09.1996. It was submitted that consent decree was arrived at between the plaintiff society and the respondents by enforcing a sale in favour of Mr. Girish Patel who earlier was an office bearer/Chairman of the Society and now had appeared as a power of attorney of defendants in the suit. The land the jantri value of which was Rs. 10 crores was sold at Rs. 50 lakhs. Admittedly, the revenue records continue to show the name of Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF and has come to the know of the applicants that the revenue records reflected the name of Mr. Girish Patel and that the leave to appeal has been filed. 5.4 Based on these submissions, the court on 02.04.2024 passed the following order: “1. Ms Megha Jani, learned advocate with Mr Arjun Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants have tendered the draft amendment. Amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. Same shall be carried out forthwith. 2. By this application, the applicants have prayed for granting leave to file first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned Court of 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge in Special Civil Suit No. 322 of 2012 (henceforth “the suit”). 3. Ms Megha Jani, learned Advocate assisted by Mr Arjun Joshi, learned Advocate has submitted that Shri Vikram Punjabhai Palkhiwala had purchased the land bearing survey no. 232 (new survey no. 138) (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question") vide registered sale deed dated 29.08.1975 from Shri Purshottam Punjabhai. Apropos which, entry no. 3106 was posted in the revenue record on 06.11.1975. In the interregnum, steps were taken and pursuant to the application made before the Mamlatdar, that the land in question was considered as HUF of Punjabhai Mohanlal, of which, entry no. 7597 dated 20.11.1997 was posted in the revenue record and the said entry continued to remain and hence, the land in question, all throughout, was running in the name of the predecessor of the applicants. 4. 7597 dated 20.11.1997 was posted in the revenue record and the said entry continued to remain and hence, the land in question, all throughout, was running in the name of the predecessor of the applicants. 4. It is further submitted that even the proceedings were initiated by the erstwhile seller, seeking cancellation of the sale deed. As a result whereof, notice, was issued under section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948"). The Mamlatdar in the inquiry, concluded that the transfer of the said property was between the agriculturist and accordingly, dropped the proceedings. 5. It is further submitted that behind the back of the applicants and in a surreptitious manner, an agreement to sell dated 11.09.1996 came to be executed between Geetagram Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as "the society") on one hand and private respondent nos.2 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as “the private respondents”) on the other. It is further submitted that when the land in question was already transferred in favour of one Vikrambhai Palkhiwala in the year 1975, vide registered sale deed, the erstwhile owner or the heirs of the erstwhile owner could not have executed the agreement to sell in favour of the society. 6. It is submitted that no steps were taken for almost sixteen years and in the year 2012, suit came to be filed seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell. Together with the plaint, copy of village form no. 7/12, was placed on record, clearly indicating that the land in question, was of the ownership of Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF. It is next submitted that somewhere in the year 2013, consent terms came to be executed between the society and the private respondent, agreeing for execution of the sale deed in favour of the society. Request was made to pass the decree in terms of the said settlement purshish. It is almost after seven years, that the execution petition no.725 of 2020 was filed, inter alia, praying for execution of the sale deed in terms of the consent decree which, led to the passing of the order dated 18.05.2022 below Exh. 16 appointing a Court Commissioner. It is almost after seven years, that the execution petition no.725 of 2020 was filed, inter alia, praying for execution of the sale deed in terms of the consent decree which, led to the passing of the order dated 18.05.2022 below Exh. 16 appointing a Court Commissioner. Accordingly, the sale deed dated 18.06.2022 came to be executed by the private respondent on one hand and one Girish Natwarlal Patel on the other and the society was shown as a confirming party. 7. It is submitted that for all these years the land in question continued to be in the name of Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF and it was only as recent as in August, 2023 when, the revenue record was checked that the name of Girish Natwarlal Patel was found in the column of occupier of the land in question. After gathering further information, the factum of filing of the suit, execution of the sale deed etc. was revealed. It is further submitted that Girish Natwarlal Patel was never party to the suit proceedings; however, surprisingly, the sale deed for a meager amount of Rs.50 lacs has been executed whereas, the actual value of the land in question is approximately Rs.10 Crores. Clearly, fraud has been perpetuated in collusion with the private respondent on one hand and the society on the other. 8. So far as the interim relief is concerned, it is submitted that it is likely that third party rights may be created, causing irreversible prejudice and likely to cause multiplicity of proceedings and would result into irreversible injury to the applicants. Reference is made to the order dated 17.03.2020 passed in Civil Application No. 1474 of 2020 wherein the learned Single Judge, has observed that normally before adjudication of the issue of delay, the Court would not issue an injunction; however, in view of the peculiar facts, the interim relief, as prayed for can also be entertained. In the said case the learned Single Judge has directed to maintain status quo with regards to the title and encumbrance of the suit property. 9. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Meghmala and Ors vs. G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 . In the said case the learned Single Judge has directed to maintain status quo with regards to the title and encumbrance of the suit property. 9. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Meghmala and Ors vs. G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 . It is submitted that the Apex Court has held and observed that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud. It is therefore submitted that considering the facts available on record and more particularly, the collusive decree and fraud perpetuated, the stay be granted at this stage. Apt would be the observations made in paragraph 32, which reads thus: “32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud. (See District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 ; Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325 ; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80 ; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar Refining Company AIR 2007 SC 2798 ; and Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 ).” 10. Considered the submissions. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 02.05.2024. 11. Normally, before adjudication of the issue of delay and the appeal, the request for stay, could not have been acceded to; however, considering the peculiar facts and on the basis of prima facie consideration of following facts and reasons, the request for interim relief, deserves consideration. 12. Pertinently, the issue revolves around the land in question. Registered sale deed dated 29.08.1975 came to be executed by Shri Purshottam Punjabhai (predecessor of the private respondent) in favour of Shri Vikram Punjabhai Palkhiwala with respect to the land in question. Entry no. 3106 was posted on 06.11.1975 in the village form no. 6. 12. Pertinently, the issue revolves around the land in question. Registered sale deed dated 29.08.1975 came to be executed by Shri Purshottam Punjabhai (predecessor of the private respondent) in favour of Shri Vikram Punjabhai Palkhiwala with respect to the land in question. Entry no. 3106 was posted on 06.11.1975 in the village form no. 6. Thereafter, vide entry no.4018 dated 10.06.1980, the Mamlatdar approved the land in question to be considered as Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF. Entry no. 7597 was posted in the revenue record. It also appears that proceedings under section 84C of the Act of 1948, were initiated which, were dropped by the Mamlatdar and entry no. 7017, was posted in the revenue record. Revision application filed has been dismissed by the Collector. 13. It appears that an agreement to sell was executed on 11.09.1996 by the heirs of Shri Purshottam Punjabhai and in the prima facie opinion of this Court, when there was already a registered sale deed executed in the year 1975, the heirs, could not have executed the same in favour of the society. The Special Civil Suit No. 322 of 2012 came to be filed seeking specific performance of the above agreement to sell; almost after 16 years. Surprisingly, consent purshish Exh.14 was placed on record dated 24.02.2013 whereby, the private respondent consented to decree in favour of the society. It appears that thereafter, as a result of the execution proceedings, that the sale deed came to be executed by the Court Commissioner in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel and the society being the confirming party. The same appears to be on the basis of the resolution passed by the society agreeing to transfer the subject property in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel for a consideration of Rs.50 Lacs. 14. Perceptibly, the sale deed specifically makes reference of the name of Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF in the revenue record. It states that mistakenly the land is running in the name of Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF and that in reality, the land is of the ownership and in possession of the private respondent for which, the suit no. 322 of 2012 has been filed. When the revenue record contained the name of Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF, it is difficult to fathom as to how the sale deed could have been executed without rectifying the revenue record. 322 of 2012 has been filed. When the revenue record contained the name of Punjabhai Mohanlal HUF, it is difficult to fathom as to how the sale deed could have been executed without rectifying the revenue record. Also, the suit was not for resolving the dispute between the applicants and private respondent, but the same was for the specific performance of the agreement to sell. 15. Besides, the banakath, was executed in the year 1996. Whereas, the suit has been filed after almost more than sixteen years i.e. in the year 2012. The execution was filed, almost after seven years. The time lag, raises a doubt about the transactions and proceedings. Therefore, only with a view to seeing that there are no multiplicity of proceedings created, the interim relief deserves to be granted. 16. Interim relief is granted in terms of paragraph 6(BB) till the next date of hearing. 17. In addition to the normal mode of service, direct service is permitted.” 6. We need to consider the submissions particularly in light of a strong emphasis made by the counsel appearing for Mr.Girish Natwarlal Patel (for impleadment of whom a civil application is already filed), that the order dated 02.04.2024 which granted interim relief against him is not based on true facts with regard to the revenue records and the entries in question in respect of the suit property. 6.1 It was strongly emphasized by Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel, that the order has been obtained by deliberately and intentionally suppressing and by shrewd and craftily placing the submissions in context of the chronological events vide the recording of Entry No. 3106 post the Sale Deed dated 29.08.1975 till the Revenue Entry No. 7597 posted on 20.11.1997 showing the lands as part of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF. The contention of the learned Counsel for Girish Natwarlal Patel is that after the recording of Entry 3106 in the year 1975, the revenue proceedings vis-a-vis Vikram Punja Palkhiwala would indicate that the Entry No. 4018 was shown and cancelled in favour of the HUF as it was a stand of Vikram Punja that the land was purchased in his individual capacity. Proceedings pursuant to the sale were suppressed. It was not pointed out to the Court that the sale of 29.08.1975 was declared invalid, Entry No. 6321 was made on 29.10.1991 recording that the land was vested in the State. Proceedings pursuant to the sale were suppressed. It was not pointed out to the Court that the sale of 29.08.1975 was declared invalid, Entry No. 6321 was made on 29.10.1991 recording that the land was vested in the State. In the Ganot Revision Case No. 588 of 1990, the matter was remanded with an observation that in light of the transfer under 84-C having held to be bad, the land should be brought to the original position i.e. back to the original owners i.e. Purshottam Punja. Effectively it was therefore argued that the land came back to the original owner Purshottam Punja and therefore the contention of the applicant HUF that a subsequent sale could not happen is bad. 6.2 As recorded in the order-sheets dated 25.07.2024 and 31.07.2024, after reserving the application for Leave to Appeal for orders, we had heard Shri Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel on 31.07.2024 and also on an oral mention being made on 02.08.2024. When the revenue entries in question right from Entry No. 3106 to 7597 were placed on record by Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate, to which submissions were made by Mr.Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr.Girish Natwarlal Patel. 6.3 A brief chronology of events with regard to the controversy in relation to the subject land is as under: 1 29.08.1975 The suit land was purchased by Vikram Punjabhai Palkhiwala from the original owners, Purshottam Punjabhai, by a registered sale deed No. 12963, for a consideration of INR 45,496. 2 06.11.1975 Entry No. 3106 posted recording the transfer of the Suit Land in favour of Vikram Punjabhai. This Entry was certified on 14.02.1976. 3 10.06.1980 Entry No. 4018 posted recording an application by Vikram Punjabhai Palkhiwala to consider the Suit Land as the property of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF. This entry was not certified 4 14.02.1994 In connection with proceedings instituted by the original owner, Purshottambhai Punjabhai under Gujarat Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (“the Act”), an order was passed by the Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad holding that the transfer dated 29.08.1975 of the Suit Land was between agriculturists, and consequently proceedings initiated under Section 63 of the Act were dropped. 5 11.09.1996 Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 entered into a registered Agreement to Sell with Respondent No.1 to transfer the Suit Land for a consideration of INR 1,00,000. 6 20.11.1997 Entry No. 7597 posted for lands bearing Survey Nos. 5 11.09.1996 Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 entered into a registered Agreement to Sell with Respondent No.1 to transfer the Suit Land for a consideration of INR 1,00,000. 6 20.11.1997 Entry No. 7597 posted for lands bearing Survey Nos. 234/2, 232 (Suit Land) and 233, to consider the said lands as part of the Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF. The HUF’s name was posted in place of Vikram Punjabhai Palkhiwala whose name featured in the revenue entries of the Suit Land. The entry was certified on 15.01.1998. 7 22.03.2012 The legal heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai (impleaded as Defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 322 of 2012) execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel with respect to the Suit Land. 8 10.05.2012 After 16 years of the Agreement to Sell, Respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No. 322 of 2012 against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 11.09.1996 qua the Suit Land and alternatively, for damages for INR 8,00,00,000. On 04.07.2012, Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel signed the Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 – Original Defendants in the said Suit. 9 29.04.2013 Based on a compromise pursis, a consent decree came to be drawn in favour of Respondent No.1. 10 26.11.2020 After 7 years of the decree, Respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition No. 725 of 2020 to execute the judgement and decree dated 29.04.2013. 11 20.05.2022 Respondent No.1 passed a Resolution to transfer the Suit Land to Girish Natwarlal Patel. 12 18.06.2022 Pursuant to the orders of the Ld.Court directing the Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2-5, a Sale Deed bearing No. 1786/2022 was executed between Girish Natwarlal Patel and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, through the Court Commissioner, whereas Respondent No.1 signed as a Confirming Party, for a consideration of INR 50,00,000. It is pertinent to note that as on the date of the Sale Deed, the Suit Land was in the name of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF (Page 221 PB, Running Page 49 of the Sale Deed). The proceedings under Section 84C of the Act were closed before almost twenty-eight (28) years vide order dated 14.02.1994. (Item No. 4 above). 13 22.02.2023 Entry No. 5327: Recorded the sale of the Suit Land in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel. This entry was certified on 20.04.2023. The proceedings under Section 84C of the Act were closed before almost twenty-eight (28) years vide order dated 14.02.1994. (Item No. 4 above). 13 22.02.2023 Entry No. 5327: Recorded the sale of the Suit Land in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel. This entry was certified on 20.04.2023. 14 12.08.2023 While ascertaining revenue records, the Appellants came across certain documents, including Form 8A, Form No. 7 and Form No. 12, which reflected Girish Natwarlal Patel’s name as Occupant of the Suit Land, in place of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF. Between 04.11.2023 and 09.02.2024, the Appellants sought information regarding the mutation entries and details of the purported transaction. 15 28.02.2024 The Appellants moved First Appeal (Filing) No. 7226 of 2024 challenging the collusive and fraudulent consent decree obtained on 29.04.2013 and all subsequent proceedings. Along with the said First Appeal, the Appellants simultaneously filed Civil Applications for: 1. Leave to Appeal 2. Condonation of Delay 3. Stay 4. Impleadment of Girish Natwarlal Patel 5. Additional Evidence. However, the CA for Condonation of Delay was returned in view of various orders, including CA No. 1 of 2015 in F/FA No. 337 of 2015. The CA was circulated with a request made to this Hon’ble Court on 21.03.2024. 16 21.03.2024 The Appellants received documents in response to a RTI application which showed a close connection between Respondent No.1 – Geetagram Society and Girish Natwarlal Patel, in whose favour the Sale Deed was executed. The aforesaid documents were brought on record by an Additional Affidavit dated 21.03.2024. 17 02.04.2024 Based on the Additional Affidavit dated 21.03.2024, which demonstrated a clear and direct link between Respondent No.1 and Girish Natwarlal Patel, the Appellants moved a draft Amendment seeking interim orders. Girish Natwarlal Patel, in person, from inter alia transferring or creating third-party rights or entering upon the Suit Land. This Hon’ble Court passed a detailed and reasoned order granting interim relief in terms of Paragraph 6(BB). 6.4 Reading the aforesaid dates and events would indicate that the applicant for leave to appeal came before us seeking leave on the ground that : (1) The sale of the suit land to Vikram Punja Palkhiwala on 29.08.1975 had attained finality. (2) The heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai had no right to execute the subsequent agreement to sell dated 11.09.1996 or to enter into consent terms or to execute the sale deed. (2) The heirs of Purshottambhai Punjabhai had no right to execute the subsequent agreement to sell dated 11.09.1996 or to enter into consent terms or to execute the sale deed. (3) From the events preceding filing of the Special Civil Suit No. 322 of 2012 i.e. an execution of a general power of attorney by the legal heirs of Purshottam Punja in favour of Girish Patel, then obtaining a decree by which the land in question was by consent sold to Girish Natwarlal Patel was collusive. This was on two counts that Girish Patel though had represented the defendants i.e. the heirs of Purshottam Punja in the suit, he also was a member and erstwhile Chairman of the plaintiff – Geetagram Society. The decree was obtained without joining Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF as parties to the suit when there were clear averments in the plaint that there was a dispute with regard to the revenue proceedings in context of the HUF and the revenue entry in Form VII was produced at Mark 3/1 in the suit together with the plaint. The sale deed of 1996 as well as a declaration given by Geetagram Society indemnifying the subsequent purchaser indicated that there was a litigation in context of the HUF property and therefore Girish Natwarlal Patel was aware of such litigation. 7. These circumstances were recorded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and interim relief restraining Girish Natwarlal Patel from dealing with the property in question was granted. The question before us is whether we are inclined to modify and/or vacate the order based on the submissions made by the learned counsel Shri Anshin Desai. At the cost of reiteration, it had been the endeavour of Shri Desai to submit that in the interregnum between recording of Entry No. 3106 and Entry No. 7597, though it was submitted that the said entry continued to remain all throughout, in fact, in reality it wasn’t so. Hence, the emphasis on the transition of entries from Entry No. 3106 to 7597 as submitted by Shri Desai in context of 84C proceedings and vesting of land in the State and the subsequent incident of the land going back into the fold of the original owner Purshottam Punja and therefore, the validity of the sale deed of 11.09.1996, are misconceived. 7.1 On the production of the revenue entries during the course of hearing on 02.08.2024, we find that post the sale of land by Purshottam Punja by a registered Sale Deed dated 29.08.1975, in favour of Vikram Punja, Entry No. 3106 was recorded. An application was given by Vikram Punja Palkhiwala on 10.06.1980 to show the land at Survey No. 232 as property belonging to the HUF and it was so recorded accordingly. It appears that 84-C proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated on the ground that the sale of land by Purshottam Punja to Vikram Punja was bad as it was to a non-agriculturist. On 14.02.1994, the Mamlatdar passed an order holding that the sale in question was valid and therefore Sec.84-C proceedings were dropped. That order is placed before us in light of our previous orders seeking clarifications. True it is that before Entry 4018, Entry 6321 was recorded on 29.10.1991 vesting the land in the State Government but it also recorded the objection of Vikram Punja. Despite this further on 05.08.1992, Entry No. 6506 was recorded which referred to the order dated 06.01.1990 passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of vesting of the land in the State and recording the name of Vikram Punja in the revenue records for the land in question. The order dated 28.10.1991 is also on record which clearly indicates that the order dated 06.01.1990 vesting the land in the State was quashed and set aside. In Revision Ganot Case No. 150 of 1991 therefore, when the 84C proceedings were dropped, 4018 entry was recorded. Hence, right from the time Entry No. 3106 of 1975 which established the sale in favour of Vikram Punja was recorded, that fact continued to be true irrespective of the revenue proceedings with regard to vesting of land in the State which was put to a close by affirming the sale and recording entry 4018. Even Entry 7017 recorded post the order of 14.02.1994 confirmed the continuance of the sale in favour of Vikram Punja which also was recorded in Entry No. 7597. Even Entry 7017 recorded post the order of 14.02.1994 confirmed the continuance of the sale in favour of Vikram Punja which also was recorded in Entry No. 7597. 7.2 In other words, the factual recording of submissions and the submissions recorded of the Division Bench of this Court in paras 3 and 4 of the order cannot be said to be in any manner misleading or crafty pleading because the fact remains that the sale in favour of Vikram Punja was never disturbed even vis-a-vis the revenue entries post the sale deed of 1975. That brings us to answer the submission made by the applicant for leave to appeal in that background in context of the collusive nature of the suit and the decree obtained behind the back of the applicants of the leave to appeal in a surreptitious manner. 7.3 Once the sale deed of 1975 made in favour of Vikram Punja Palkhiwala and the subsequent recording of the Entry 4018 recording the lands belonging to HUF was set at rest, it was not open for the heirs of Purshottam Punja to enter into a sale deed for the very land in question by the sale deed dated 11.09.1996. Once the land vested in the HUF, the heirs of Purshottam Punja cease to have any right, title or any interest in the suit land. This was particularly when Entry No. 7597 recorded on 20.11.1997 showed that the land was in the name of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF. 8 As pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore, the sale deed in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel on 18.06.2022 pursuant to the compromise entered into in the suit clearly showed that in the revenue records the name of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF was recorded by mistake. The plaint of the Civil Suit No.322 of 2012 also clearly averred in para 5 that with respect to the suit land which the Geetagram Society, the plaintiff, wanted specific performance of, a dispute was pending between the ancestors of the defendants namely Purshottam Punja with respect to a previous sale deed. Even Mark 3/1 produced with the plaint showed that the land was standing in the name of Punjabhai HUF. 9 All these circumstances clearly indicated that the applicants for leave to appeal were necessary parties to the suit as indisputably, the land was vested in the HUF. Even Mark 3/1 produced with the plaint showed that the land was standing in the name of Punjabhai HUF. 9 All these circumstances clearly indicated that the applicants for leave to appeal were necessary parties to the suit as indisputably, the land was vested in the HUF. Knowing fully well, in addition to the circumstances such as Girish Natwarlal Patel vesting himself with the authorities of the defendants to plead on their behalf in the suit when he was an erstwhile Chairman of the plaintiff society is said to have bought the land in 2022 in an execution proceeding filed seven years after the decree i.e. in Execution Petition 725 of 2020 for execution of a judgement based on a compromise pursis dated 29.04.2013. In a suit filed on 10.05.2012, sixteen years after the agreement to sell, between the legal heirs of Purshottam Punja defendants and the plaintiff Geetagram in favour of Girish Natwarlal Patel, who two months before filing of the suit became the power of attorney holder of the defendant, an erstwhile Chairman of the plaintiff Society clearly made the sale by compromise of a suit property admittedly of the leave to appeal applicant’s HUF, a suspicious sale of a property which was otherwise sold and shown in favour of the applicant’s HUF since 1975 till the date of filing of the suit. 9.1 All these circumstances have been considered by the Court while granting interim relief by its order dated 02.04.2024 in light of the decision of the Supreme Court to which the Division Bench has referred to. 10. Since it was vehemently argued by the learned Senior Advocate in light of the decision cited by him at the bar with regard to the impropriety in granting an order against a non party respondent without even granting leave to appeal, the circumstances narrated by us indicate and we agree that as recorded in the order of 02.04.2024, the facts glaringly indicate collusion to divest the branch of Punjabhai Mohanbhai HUF of the land which was sold to it in 1975 and the revenue records throughout reflected their names. The sale under a compromise decree without joining them as party and when both the seller and the purchaser were purportedly represented which, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court, and in our opinion rightly so as a layer we are inclined to continue and confirm the interim relief granted by this Court. Since the writ of the order dated 02.04.2024 was served on Girish Natwarlal Patel, and we had heard his counsel, we deem it fit to confirm the interim relief. We accordingly also grant the leave to appeal. Order accordingly. In view of grant of Leave to Appeal, Civil Application for Condonation of Delay is also allowed.