A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J.

1. Respondent No. 1 has filed O.S. No. 2329 of 2002 against respondent no. 2, in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for passing of a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 17.12.1998 in respect of the plaint schedule property and for grant of consequential reliefs. For convenience, the parties would be referred to in this order, as per their rank in the suit.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 17.12.1998, agreeing to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,78,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the same day and delivered vacant possession of the suit property in part performance of contract and agreed to complete the sale transaction within a period of three months. Alleging that the defendant did not come forward to complete the sale transaction, two notices were sent on 27.06.2000 and 03.10.2000 demanding compliance and there being no compliance, suit was instituted on 06.04.2002, for granting of the said reliefs. Defendant filed written statement dated 09.09.2005 and has inter alia contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that the sale agreement was cancelled and that the suit is not maintainable and it is also barred by limitation.

3. The petitioner herein filed an I.A. No. 4 on 20.02.2007, under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC, to permit him to come on record as a necessary party, on the ground that he purchased the suit property from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 17.12.2006 and that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The plaintiff having filed statement of objections on 22.07.2007 to I.A. No. 4, the Trial Judge passed an order of rejection, by observing that the principle of 'pendente lite' applies to the case, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Roy, AIR 2007 SC 1332 : 2007 (2) KCCR SN 41 (SC). Assailing the said order, the applicant in I.A. No. 4 has filed this writ petition.

4. At the stage of preliminary hearing, since learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of Smt. Saila Bala Dassi vs. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi & another, AIR 1958 SC 394, a learned Single Judge, in the light of the two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, by an order dated 19.02.2008, referred this, writ petition, in exercise of the power conferred under S.9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 to the Division Bench. The Division Bench by an order dated 03.04.2008 admitted the writ petition for consideration in detail in the light of the decision in the case of Smt. Saila Bala Dassi (supra). However, on 11.01.2013, the Division Bench ordered thus:

"3. We do not think that in the instant case, any issue or question has arisen necessitating a reference to the Division Bench under Section 9 of the Act. It was for the learned Single Judge to have decided on the applicability of the judgments of the Supreme Court rather than referring the matter to the Division Bench. Hence, the reference is returned to the learned Single Judge having the roster to decide the matter in accordance with law."

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and is contrary to the principles governing the provision under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC. He submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the alleged sale agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also the pendency of the suit till the date of filing I.A. 4. He submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration and is entitled to contest the suit, else, his right in the suit property will get jeoparadised. Learned Counsel further submitted that the judicial discretion conferred on the Court under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC has not been lawfully exercised by the Trial Judge and the impugned order being vitiated, warrants i