The court established that in specific performance cases, all parties with a direct interest must be included to ensure effective adjudication and uphold the doctrine of Us pendens.

ORDER

1. Counsel for the petitioner has shown judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. CWP No.5265/2017 rendered on 13.04.2018, which reads as follows:-

"1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.l, Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.6/2011 (CIS No. 404/2014) may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently application under Order 6 Rule 17 read 1 Rule 10 CPC may kindly be allowed and its prayer clause.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner. "

2. The suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondent for specific performance of the contract dated 23.05.2008. During the suit proceedings, the respondent has brought a document on record reflecting that a partition has taken place between the respondent/defendant and his brother, Fuman Singh, and the land in question has come to the share of Fuman Singh, pursuant to the said partitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner states that the petitioner immediately sought impleadment of said Fuman Singh, as the purpose of the suit for specific performance would be frustrated, if the claimed actual owner of the land in question, would not be a party to the proceedings of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sushil Bishnoi has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Thomas Press (Indian) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2013(1) WLC (SC) Civil 453, the operative portion of which reads as under:

"23. It would also be worth to discuss some of the relevant laws in order to appreciate the case on hand. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act speaks about the doctrine of Us pendens. Section 52 reads 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 or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.

[Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.

24. It is well settled that the doctrine of Us pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title pendente lite. The provision of this Section does not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. Discussing the principles of Us pendens, the Privy Council in the case of Gouri Dutt Maharaj v. Sukur Mohammed & Ors. AIR (35) 1948, observed as under:

"The broad purpose of Section