- (1.) Dismissal of application of the subsequent vendees i.e. the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendants in the suit on the basis of sale deed dated 15.5.2008 i.e. during pendency of the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs, for partition of the suit land, forms the genesis of this civil revision petition.
(2.) It is claimed by the applicants-petitioners that the lower court failed to take note of the fact that suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for partition of the suit land was not being contested by the respondentsdefendants including their vendor i.e. respondent-defendant No.2. In short, it is claimed that the lower court completely ignored the fact that the respondent-vendor of the applicants-petitioners having sold his share, is left with no right, title or interest in the land and thus, is not even bothered to contest the suit, causing great prejudice to the right and interest of the applicants-petitioners as subsequent vendees.
(3.) Claim of the only contesting respondent-defendant, on the other hand, is that sale in favour of the applicants-petitioners having been effected by one of the respondents-defendants during pendency of the suit, is subject to applicability of doctrine of lis-pendence in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus, the applicants-petitioners would be subject to the rights and liabilities of their vendor respondent-defendant No.2 to be adjudicated by the lower court. It is, thus, reiterated that dismissal of the application of the applicants-petitioners was correct.;