( 1 ) APPLICATION (I. A. 12820/95) under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by one lqbal Singh for being impleaded as a party in a suit for specific performance filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 31. 3. 1992 whereby the Defendant bed agreed to sell her l/135th (8 Biswas) undivided share in agricultural land comprised in various khasras as mentioned in the plaint situated in Village Bijwasan for a consideration of Rs. 90,000. 00 out of which a sum of Rs. 10. 000. 00 was paid as advance. The balance of Rs. 80,000. 00 was payable at the. time of execution of sale deed. The sale deed has not been executed by the Defendant in spite of legal notice dated 12. 5. 1995. The suit was liledon 9. 10. 1995. On an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 by an order ex parte temporary injunction passed on 17. 10. 1995 Defendant was restrained from transferring, alienating, parting with possession or creating third party interest in the suit property. Intimation to this effect was sent to Defendant on 18. 10. 1995 as provided under Order 39 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code. Another interim order was passed on 27. 12. 1995 restraining the Defendant from raising any construction. Contempt Petition was filed and appearance was put in Court on behalf of the Defendant as well as by the applicant on 20. 12. 1995. The Defendant filed written statement and reply to applications, on 23. 2. 1996. Sale consideration agreed and part payment were not specifically denied minor the receipt @f notice dated 12. 5. 1995 was denied. She, however, has pleaded that on 24. 4. 1995, a Memorandum of Understanding (for short "mou") was entered into by her to transfer the said land to Shri lqbal Singh for Rs. 1,16,000. 00 and had received an advance of Rs. 6. 000. 00 and on 28. 4. 1995, she had also executed an agreement of sale in his favour and received Rs. 31,000. 00 as advance and possession of the land was handed over to him and thereafter, a sale deed was executed in his favour on 25. 11. 1995 through her general attorney and balance amount of Rs. 79,000. 00 was also paid to her; that the Plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance. She has denied that the order of ex parte interim injunction was served on her or she had knowledge of it.

( 2 ) APPLICANT Shri Iqbal Singh in his application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code has also taken similar pleas.

( 3 ) COPIES of MOU dated 24. 4. 1995, agreement to sell dated 28. 4. 1995 and sale deed dated 20. 11. 1995 have been placed on record. Plaintiff has disputed and is contesting the right and entitlement of the applicant to be impleaded as a party.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the Plaintiff has contended that there is no agreement to sell entered into between applicant Iqbal Singh and the Defendant. The agreement relied is between Defendant and Shamsher Singh and as such applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the MOU and agreement in question and that the sale deed in favour of the applicant was executed on 20. 11. 1995, i. e. , after the institution of the suit and after the order of temporary injunction restraining the transfer of the property was passed against the Defendant and as such the transfer in favour of the applicant is void being hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short "the TPA") and also being in breach of order of injunction and he is not entitled to he impleaded as a party. Whereas learned counsel for the applicant whom the counsel for the Defendant has supported has contended that agreement to sell was entered into by the Defendant prior to institution of the suit; the applicant is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice of the agreement of sale with Plaintiff, he had no notice or knowledge of the suit or of the injunction order. In the circumstances, the doctrine of Us pendens is not attracted.