JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order dated 10/10/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (Karauli) Rajasthan whereby the application filed by the petitioner and other applicants for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner are that the petitioner alongwith performa-respondents purchased a land in Hindaun Town vide registered sale deed dated 28/09/2018 from one Smt. Rajani Upadhaya, resident of 1/16, Janakpuri Tundala Road, District Firozabad (U.P.). The aforesaid land was in the name of Smt. Rajani Upadhaya as per the revenue records and she was having possession over the land and possession of the same was peacefully handed over to the petitioner and the performa respondents at the time of execution of sale deeds.

3. It is case of the petitioner that he was never informed about pendency of suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of Smt. Rajani Upadhaya vide registered sale deeds dated 31/01/2007 and 26/04/2007. As stated by the petitioner, when he purchased the land on 28/09/2018, there was no stay operational and no injunction operating against transfer of the said land and therefore, while the title was legally searched, no information regarding any kind of legal hurdle was found. It was only on 13/02/2019 that the petitioner came to know regarding interim order and the matter being sub-judice before the learned trial court and immediately he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment being a bonafide purchaser. The said application was duly replied by the opposite side and after consideration of the same, vide order impugned dated 10/10/2019, the application for impleadment was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser as the sale deed was executed after payment of appropriate stamp duty and getting the same registered. Thereafter, in the revenue records, appropriate entry of amendment in his name is duly recorded as a Khatedar. The respondent no. 4, who has sold the said property under the sale deed dated 28/09/2018, is living in U.P. and is not taking any interest in the litigation and therefore, in the interest of justice, as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and as per his application, his application for impleadment should be allowed. In support of his claim, he has relied upon one judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 (5) SCC 397 titled as Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors., more specifically Para 55 which reads as under:-

"55. We are not on virgin ground in so far as that question is concerned. Decisions of this Court have dealt with similar situations and held that a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party to the suit lest the transferee suffered prejudice on account of the transferor losing interest in the litigation post transfer. In Khemchand Shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil (1983) 1 SCC 18, this Court held that

"6. ...... the position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding."

Any such heir, legatee or transferee cannot be turned away when she applies for being added as a party to the suit. The following passage in this regard is apposite:

6...Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party fro