The main legal point established in the judgment is that a transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as a party to a suit to protect their interest, as provided in Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by an order dated 21.04.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 254 of 2000 by learned Sub-Judge-I, Patna, whereby application filed by the petitioner for his impleadment as party in the said suit has been rejected.

3. Certain facts are admitted. One Jagan Ram died on 19.01.1985 leaving behind his Widow Nago Devi and two sons Shiv Ram Prasad and Binay Prasad. The said Jagan Ram during his life time, had acquired a property from Indrapuri Sahkari Grih Nirman Sammittee Limited, having an area of 2148 sq. ft. Nago Devi filed the suit seeking partition of the said property vide suit No. 254 of 2000 on 09.06.2000. However, prior to filing of the suit, second son of Jagan Ram, namely, Binay Prasad by a registered sale deed dated 04.05.2000 had transferred part of the property to Birendra Kumar Singh. Shiv Ram, Binay Prasad and Birendra Kumar Singh were thus impleaded as defendants No.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit. They have been impleaded as Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 in the present application respectively. Respondent No. 4, Birendra Kumar Singh by a registered sale deed dated 23.07.2005 transferred the property purchased by him in favour of Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider. Subsequently, Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider transferred the said property to the petitioner on 16.10.2007 by a registered sale deed. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application under Order I rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment as party defendant in the suit. The Court below however, has rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 21.04.2009 on the ground that the petitioner was not at all a necessary party in the partition suit and complete adjudication of the suit would not be hampered even in the absence of the petitioner.

4. This is to be noted that in the meanwhile, Respondent No. 3 had filed his written statement on 10.11.2000 and Respondent No. 4 had filed his written statement on 13.03.2001. This is to be clarified, at the cost of repetition, that Respondent No. 3 is vendor of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 4 is vendor of Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider, from whom the petitioner purchased the part of the suit property.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submits that the Court below wrongly rejected his application for intervention as evidently the petitioner had interest in the suit property. He submits that after transferring the property, Respondent No. 3 and 4 lost their interest in the suit and for the ends of justice, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to be impleaded as party in the suit. He further submits that his impleadment as party would not have prejudiced the case of the other parties as the petitioner would not have been taking any stand inconsistent with the stand of the original vendor i.e. Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 4 so far as share of Respondent No. 3 in the suit property was concerned. He further submits that that the disposal of suit would not have been delayed because of the impleadment of the petitioner as he was required to be impleaded just to ensure that his interest in the property purchased by him was duly protected.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, who has been substituted in place of the plaintiff Nago Devi in the Court below, contends that no permission was sought by the petitioner from the Court below at the time of purchase of the concerned property nor such permission was granted. He accordingly submits that the said transaction between Respondent No. 3 on the one hand and Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider on the other is hit by doctrine of lis pendens as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He also submits that transfer of the said property by Tabassum Haid