1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the rival parties.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 19.5.2013 passed by learned District Judge-2, Akola (below Exh. 23) in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2013, by which the said Application (Exh.23) filed by the present petitioner, was rejected.

3. In support of the Writ Petition Mr. A.S. Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice to the suit property and he came to know about pendency of the Appeal against the judgment and decree for specific performance of contract that was passed by the learned trial Judge in RCS No.388/2012 and, therefore, in order to save his interest, filed Application (Exh.23) in the pending Appeal. The lower Appellate Court rejected the Application (Exh.23) only on the ground that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and is a stranger to the litigation and in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (henceforth referred to as “ the T.P. Act”), as per the doctrine of lis pendens, the decree is binding on him. As such, he cannot be allowed to participate in the proceedings in Appeal since he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. According to Mr. Mehadia, the petitioner was cheated by respondent no.2 and he would be losing his hard-earned income with which he purchased the suit property, he having no knowledge about the suit or the decree that was passed, which is ultimately challenged before the lower Appellate Court. He submitted that the petitioner being a person who has been deceived, cannot be denied the entry from the doors of the Court in order that the petitioner can put up his case before the lower Appellate Court and show his bona fides and the manner in which he was deceived and also may get some relief if the Court finds accordingly. But then, according to him, closing the doors of justice to him would be doing severe injustice to him and also will give rise of multifariousness of litigation. He, therefore, prayed for allowing Application (Exh. 23).

4. Per contra, Mr. U.J. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 argued that his client holds a decree in his favour for specific performance of contract in respect of the earlier contract with the respondent no.2 that was eventually passed without contest from the respondent no.2 and he is entitled to take advantage of the decree passed by the competent court of law in his favour. The petitioner, according to Mr. Deshpande, is a mere stranger. His transaction, if any, is hit by doctrine of lis pendens contemplated under Section 52 of the T.P. Act He relied on the decisions reported in 2013 (2) Civil L.J. 503 (Vidur Impex vs. Tosh Apartmentrs & others); AIR 2005 SC 2813 (1) Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others; and argued that it is consistently held that such a person is not a necessary party to the suit or in the Appeal. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Petition.

5. Mr. B.N. Mohta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 supported the impugned order.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, so also the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I think it will be proper to state few relevant facts in this case.

7. The respondent no.1 Mahadeo filed the Suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent no.2 Smt. Priyawanda in respect of the suit property namely, a house at Emerald Colony, Geetanagar, Akola vide Special Civil Suit No.170/2010 (new RCS No.388/2012). The suit was filed on the ground that the respondent no.2 had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent no.1 on 16.02.2010 for a total consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- and that the sale deed would be completed by 16.05.2010. The said suit proceeded and ultimately a decree came to be passed on 11.2.2013 in favour of respondent n