Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) TODAY the matter comes upon an application being I.A. No. 5888/2013 filed on behalf of the applicant M/s. Royal Palace Mattel, Sirohi through its partner Sh. Vikram Singh Rajput under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal.
(2.) IT has been claimed in the application that during the pendency of the lis between Nisar Mohd. and Durga Devi, the applicant purchased the land in question through a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2012. It is claimed in the application that the possession of the property in question has also been handed over to the applicant and thus, the applicant is a proper and necessary party in the present appeal, which has been preferred by Nisar Mohd. against the rejection of his application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Shri Sandeep Shah learned counsel for the applicant relies on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A. Nawab John & Ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam reported in : (2012) 7 SCC 738 and Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors. reported in : (2013) 5 SCC 397 and submits that the transfer pendent -lite is neither illegal nor void -ab -initio and impleadment of the subsequent purchaser of the property is essential for the just decision of the case.
(3.) SHRI Richin Surana learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy & Ors. reported in : AIR 2007 SC 1332 and submits that the transferee, who during the pendency of the litigation knowingly purchased the property from the defendant without leave of the Court cannot claim impleadment in view of the doctrine of lis pendens. Thus, he submits that the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying for impleadment of party should be rejected.;