JUDGMENT

1. This leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant qua the judgment and decree dated 15/3/2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh in civil original suit no. 20/2004, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff for specific performance of the contract has been decreed.

2. It is inter alia indicated that on 25/11/2000 an agreement claims to have been executed by the respondents - Balkaran Singh and Jaskaran Singh in favour of respondent no.1, Shravan Singh, for the land ad measuring 3 bigha. The sale deed was to be registered by 30/12/2001, which date was extended upto 30/4/2003 and, thereafter till 30/4/2004. On 5/8/2003, Jaskaran executed sale deed in favour of the applicant for a part of the suit land. Whereafter, five more sale deeds dated 15/5/2004, 15/7/2005, 27/9/2005, 25/1/2006, 6/10/2006 and 28/6/2007 for small parcels of the said land were executed in favour of the applicant by Balkaran/Jaskaran and Smt. Gurucharan Kaur.

3. On 14/7/2005, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the contract dated 25/11/2000. The defendant appeared before the trial court, however, did not disclose the fact of sale deed in favour of the applicant. The suit was decreed on 15/3/2010 and execution application was filed on 9/5/2017 and another application was filed on 8/8/2019 seeking possession of the land in question. It is claimed that it is only when warrant for possession of the land in question was issued and Nazir made a report, that the applicant came to know about the passing of the impugned decree.

4. Submissions were made that immediately on transfer in favour of the applicant in the year 2003, mutation in the name of applicant was recorded and the plaintiff despite being aware did not implead the applicant/appellant as party.

5. Submissions have been made that as the applicant is affected by the impugned judgment and decree, he may be granted leave to appeal and if such leave is not granted, the same would cause undue hardship as he would be dispossessed from his own land.

6. Reply to the application has been filed inter alia indicating that the application deserves to be dismissed as the applicant was very well aware of the agreement to sell and passing of the decree. Submissions were also made that sale deed in favour of the applicant was below the prevailing market rate, which clearly cast doubt on the bonafides of the applicant.

7. Further submissions were made that bulk of transfers have taken place during the pendency of the suit, after injunction was granted by the trial court and as such the same was hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the T.P.Act') and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to leave to appeal.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. A perusal of the material clearly indicates that before the decree was passed by the trial court, sale deeds have already been executed in favour of the applicant, while one sale deed was executed prior to filing of the suit, rest of the sale deeds were executed after filing of the suit.

10. The issue as to whether in the suit for specific performance decreed by the trial court, a pendente lite purchaser can be granted leave to defend has been considered by this Court in Gordhan & Ors. vs. Prasanna Chand Bur ad : S.B. Civil Leave to Appeal No. 12/2018 decided on 3/3/2021, wherein, relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saila Bala Dassi vs. Nirmala Sundari Dassi : AIR 1958 SC 394 and Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal & Ors.: (2004) 2 SCC 601, it was found that the applicants being parties aggrieved were entitled for grant of leave to appeal.

11. Once, if the transferee pendente lite has been held to be entitled for grant of leave to appeal, qua the sale deed, which was executed prior to filing of the suit also, the applicant is entitled to grant of leave to appeal.

12. Submiss