Common Order:

The petitioner is third party to the suit, who filed two applications before the 14th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.8879 of 1997 to implead her as a party. The first respondent is plaintiff, who filed the suit for a mandatory injunction directing the removal of superstructure available in the suit schedule property reportedly put up by the defendants. He also filed an application in I.A.No.16639 of 2006 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule mentioned property with the assistance of qualified surveyor. The two petitions filed by the present petitioner are, one in I.A.No.15545 of 2007 to implead her as party under Section 94(e) r/w Sec.151 of C.P.C., in I.A.No.16639 of 2006 and another in I.A.No.15546 to implead her under Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C., in O.S.No.8879 of 1997. Both the applications were resisted by the first respondent/plaintiff by filing separate counters.

2. In the affidavit filed by this petitioner before the Court below, it is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the 7th defendant in the suit sold the property in Door No.31, Tanks Square West Street, Saidapet, Chennai, which is the subject matter of the suit under a registered sale deed dated 7. 2006 to this petitioner and hence she has become the owner of the property and that the right, title and interest in the property have devolved upon her and she may be impleaded as 8th defendant in the suit and that there would be no prejudice to the plaintiff in impleading her in the suit.

.3. In the counter affidavits filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, it is stated that the petition for impleading the petitioner in the proceedings is not maintainable in law and facts that she has no locus standi to seek impleadment that the alleged sale is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, that there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioner and that it is well settled by the Apex Court and this High Court that a transferee pendente lite need not be impleaded in the pending proceedings and hence the petition has to be dismissed.

4. Learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dismissed both the applications with cost by observing that any decision that is made against the 7th defendant will be binding on the petitioner and the petitioner cannot have any independent defence that she is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and effective adjudication of the dispute can be done even without the presence of the purchaser pending suit that the petitioner can only await the decision that is going to be made in the suit and that it is nothing but only a futile exercise.

5. The petitioner purchased the property covered by the suit on 05.07.2006 from the 7th defendant/8th respondent pending the trial of the case. It is her submission that even though the suit is in part heard stage, she does not seek to re-open the case afresh and that she is not going to file any independent written statement in case of her application for the impleadment being allowed.

6. Mr.T. Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. Even though she purchased the property during the pendency of the case, the rights of the parties to the suit ought to be finally adjudicated only in the presence of the petitioner and in her absence, any decree passed by the Court could only be an invalid one. It is his further contention that decisions on this point have been pronounced by the Apex Court and by this Court in favour of impleadment of a person who got alienation during pendency of the suit and though the said alienation is described to be hit by the principle of lis pendens, still, the petitioner has got to be included in the suit and that it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings in future.

.7. Arguing