1. - Today the matter comes upon an application being I.A. No. 5888 of 2013 filed on behalf of the applicant M/s. Royal Palace Mattel, Sirohi through its partner Shri Vikram Singh Rajput under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal.

2. It has been claimed in the application that during the pendency of the Us between Nisar Mohd. and Durga Devi, the applicant purchased the land in question through a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2012. It is claimed in the application that the possession of the property in question has also been handed over to the applicant and thus, the applicant is a proper and necessary party in the present appeal, which has been preferred by Nisar Mohd. against the rejection of his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.

3. Shri Sandeep Shah learned Counsel for the applicant relies on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A. Nawab John and Ors. v. V.N. Subramaniyam reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 and Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 and submits that the transfer pendente lite is neither illegal n