K. Ramanna, J.

This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the application filed by the appellants under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC seeking permission of the Court to permit them to come on record as additional defendants in O.S.No.88/98 pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gulburga.

2. The case of the appellants are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.88/88 (sic 88/98) against the respondents No.2 and 3 herein for specific performance of contract and perpetual (sic Perpetual) injunction contending that there was an oral agreement of sale of the portion of the property bearing No.1-1295 at Gullabawadi, Aiwan-E-Shahi Road, Gulburga for an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- and that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- and how he has to pay only Rs.1000/- as consideration. Since the respondents No.2 and 3 refused to execute the sale deed he filed the said suit and also obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining, respondents No.2 and 3 from alienating the suit property in favour of third parties. That before the service of summons and the order Of temporary injunction, the appellant No.1 has taken lease for 100 years over plot measuring 52 ft. 3 inches towards east and 52 ft. 3 inches towards; west, 87 ft. ‘towards north and 77 ft. towards south by a registered lease deed dated 30.5.1998 which is part and parcel of house bearing No.1-1295 of Lahoti Estate. That appellant No.2 purchased a plot measuring 81.25 ft. X 52.25 ft. under a registered sale deed dated 30.5.1998 which is also part of the suit property. That appellant No.3 purchased a portion of house No. 1295/B and open space of 82 ft. x 58 ft. under the registered sale deed from respondents No.2 and 3. They came to know about the pendency of the present suit, immediately they filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC seeking permission of the trial Court to permit them to come, on record as defendants No.3 to 6, which cam~ to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the records. The question that arises for consideration is “Whether the application to come on record by subsequent transferee be rejected and whether the subsequent purchaser be non-suited altogether?

4. The contention of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is that the transaction between the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3 have taken, place during the pendency of the suit and despite injunction order granted by the trial Court and hence, the appellants are not necessary or proper party to the suit; that the instant suit being for specific performance of contract the presence of appellants is not necessary.

5. The trial Court dismissed the application of the appellants holding that the transaction between the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 is hit by the doctrine of lis-pendens and therefore, whatever the decree that would be passed will be binding on the appellants and that the alienee cannot be considered as necessary or proper parties to the suit.

Admittedly during the pendency of the suit O.S.No.88/1988 (sic 88/ 1998) the appellants have taken a portion of the suit property on lease for 100 years and also purchased the major portion of the properly under registered sale deed dated 30.5.1998. The documents produced by the appellants in support of that application clearly discloses that the suit property is also part of the property purchased by them under the said lease deed and sale deed dated 30.5.1998.

6. The dispute in between the parties was in respect of the validity of grant of the lease and also validity of execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant by the respondents No.2 and 3 and also with regard to the claim of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 regarding the existence of a valid oral agreement of sale and acting on the same by the plaintiff and Respondents No.2 and 3. However, it is settled law that any purchase during the pendency of the suit has to be made only with the permission of the. Cou