Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
(2.) The revision has arisen from the order dated 13.03.2003 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court, Bulandshahar in Original Suit No. 1 of 1997.
(3.) It is not in dispute that Sri Ashok Kumar Singhal and Sri Varun Kumar Singhal, who have been directed to be impleaded are the subsequent purchasers of part of disputed property and are bound to be affected adversely in case the suit of plaintiff is decreed. Therefore, in view of Apex Court's decision in Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 397 they have rightly been impleaded. Relying on aforesaid decision and some other decisions, this Court in Ram Naresh v. The Additional District Judge and others, 2015(5) ADJ 343 has held as under: "30. Recently in Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 397 , the Court has again reviewed the law in respect to the status of a subsequent purchaser whether he is necessary and proper party and must be impleaded in a pending suit for specific performance. The question, which was considered by Court, as formulated in para 16 of the judgment is "Whether if the appellant who is the transferee pendente lite having notice and knowledge about the pendency of the suit for2 specific performance and order of injunction can be impleaded as party under Order 1, Rule 10 on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour by the defendant Sawhneys." Referring to Section 52 of Act, 1882, it was observed that doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title pendente lite. The provision of this Section does not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. 31. The Court in Thomson Press (India) Limited (supra) also referred to Section 19 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1963")and Order 1, Rule 10 . With reference to Order 1, Rule 10 , the Court referred to its earlier decision in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, 1992 (2) SCC 524 and said that desirable consequence of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions. It quoted with approval Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER 273 , observing that true test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of applicants' rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject- matter of the action, if those rights could be established. The test is: "May the order for which the Plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights -. With reference to Section 19 of Act, 1963, the Court said that a contract for specific performance may be enforced against the parties to the contract and the persons mentioned in the said section. The suit for specific performance cannot be enforced against a person who is a transferee from the vendor for valuable consideration and without notice of the original contract which is sought to be enforced in the suit. Hon'ble M.Y.Eqbal, J, in His Lordship's judgment, took the view that a subsequent purchaser, with notice, is to be added as party defendant in the suit relying on its earlier decisions in R.C.Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal, AIR 1971 SC 1238 and Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh AIR 1973 SC 655 . His Lordship T.S.Thakur, J. in his separate but concurring judgment, referred to earlier decisions in Nagubai Ammal v. B.Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593 ; Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj 2010 (8) SCC 1 ; A. Nawab John v. V.N.Subramaniyam, 2012 (7) SCC 738 and Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami, 1972 (2) SCC 200 , and said in para 54 as under : "A simple reading of the above provision would show that in cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. What has troubled us is whether independent of Order I Rule 10 CPC the prayer for addition made by the appellant could be considered in the light of the above provisions and, if so, whether the appellant could be added as a party-defendant to the suit. Our answer is in the affirmative. It is true that the application which the appellant made was only under Order I Rule 10 CPC but the enabling provision of Order 22, Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation so demanded. It was in any case not urged by the counsel for the respondents that Order 22, Rule 10 could not be4 called in aid with a view to justifying addition of the appellant as a party-defendant. Such being the position all that is required to be examined is whether a transferee pendete lite could in a suit for specific performance be added as a party- defendant and, if so, on what terms." (emphasis added) 32. His Lordship, in para 57, of the judgment in Thomson Press (India) Limited (supra) while summing up the matter, said as under : "57. To sum up: 57.1 The appellant is not a bona fide purchaser and is, therefore, not protected against specific performance of the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant owners in the suit. 57.2 The transfer in favour of the appellant pendente lite is effective in transferring title to the Appellant but such title shall remain subservient to the rights of the plaintiff in the suit and subject to any direction which the Court may eventually pass therein. 57.3 Since the appellant has purchased the entire estate that forms the subject-matter of the suit, the appellant is entitled to be added as a party-defendant to the suit. 57.4 The appellant shall as a result of his addition raise and pursue only such defences as were available and taken by the original defendants and none other." 33. The aforesaid decisions make it very clear that subsequent transferee can be impleaded as party in the suit where plaintiff is seeking enforcement of an agreement for sale and has come up for specific performance though it is wholly unnecessary for plaintiff to challenge conveyance/ sale deed5 executed by defendants during pendency of suit to the party proposed to be brought on record in the suit.";