RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. Civil Revision Application No. 729 of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff for the prayer that the order passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, below Exh. 3 granting permission to appeal against the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 248 of 1997 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Banaskantha at Annexure-A may be set aside on the grounds stated in the Memo of Petition, inter alia, that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-applicants were not a party at all before the trial Court, and therefore, they have no right to file an appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is also contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Order 41, Rules 1 and 2 which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the lower appellate Court ought to have issued notice to the present petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing the order is passed. It is also contended that the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate before granting such application as to whether any right is accrued to file such appeal by the applicants or not.

2. Civil Revision Application No. 732 of 1999 is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed below Exh. 1 condoning the delay in filing Misc. Civil Application No. 91 of 1998 by the learned Extra Assistant Judge.

3. Civil Revision Application No. 505 of 1999 is also filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in execution application on the ground stated in the petition that the lower appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it in dismissing the petitioner's application, Execution Application No. 32 of 2000. It is also contended that the Court has erred in finding that the provisions of lis pendens contained in Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act though admittedly the sale was made pending the suit and it will have application, it has not been considered.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. S. M. Shah appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land pending the litigation as stated in detail in Execution Application No. 32 of 2000. He submitted that some of the original defendants have sold different portions of land to the present respondents. Therefore, they are claiming right in the suit land as a transferee in place of the original defendants. He submitted that the provisions of Sec. 52 of the T. P. Act would be attracted. He submitted that though they were not a party to the suit originally, an application was filed before the lower appellate Court which was granted by the lower appellate Court erroneously without considering the nature of right or interest of the applicant as to whether any right has accrued in their favour.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah submitted that as per the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the T. P. Act'), the principles of lis pendens would apply if any property is transferred or purchased pending the litigation before the Court. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah submitted that it is not necessary to issue any notice to the party or serve and register under the Registration Act any such notice. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah submitted that the Court is required to consider the provisions of Sec. 52 of T. P. Act which provide as under :

"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto :- During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit of proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order