1. The above civil revision petition is filed under Section 1 15 of Civil Procedure Code against the order and decretal order of the IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dated 10.7.2000 made in I. A. No. 21 of 2000 in O.S.No.470 of 1996.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: -

The petitioner herein as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.470 of 1996 on the file of IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27.11.1994. Along with the suit, an application in I.A.No.488 of 1996 was filed seeking for the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondent from making alienation or creating encumbrance over the property, which is the subject matter of the suit. It seems that no injunction was granted as prayed for, obviously,on the ground of lis pendens. The suit was taken up for trial. During the cross examination of the respondent/defendant, it was elicited from him that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the property in dispute was sold to one Jegannathan during July, 1992, Hence, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.21 of 2000 to implead the said Jegannathan as a party/defendant to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. The correctness of the same is now questioned in the present civil revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Srinivasan has submitted that the fact of subsequent sale of the disputed property was not mentioned in the written statement filed in the suit or in the counter filed in the injunction application. Though the sale is invalid and void and it would not affect the petitioner’s right in the suit property, the said Jegannathan is a necessary party. Without impleading the subsequent purchaser to the suit, even if a decree is obtained in favour of the petit ioner, that cannot be executed and the non-impleadment of the subsequent purchaser would create unnecessary complication and multiplicity of proceedings. In order to sustain his case, the learned Counsel relied on the decisions in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur , AIR 1999 SC 976, Vellaya Gounder and another v. A.P. Ramalingam , 1998 (1) L.W. 219 and Sengamalam v. The Idol of Arulmighu Ranganaha Swami, Srirangam , 1999 (3) L.W. 888.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the proposed respondent - the subsequent purchaser is not a necessary party to resolve the issue in the suit. The suit itself is for a specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner and respondent/defendant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent herein that in the written statement, the execution of the agreement itself is disputed by the respondent. Even assuming that the petitioner would get a decree in his favour, any sale during the pendency of the specific performance suit hit by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree that would be passed in the suit would definitely bind not only the parties to the suit, but also the transferee-pendente lite purchaser. The trial court has exercised the jurisdiction vested on it based on the principle of settled law and that the order cannot be characterised as exercise of Jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In order to sustain his case, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has sought the support of the decisions in Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra , 1995 (3) SCC 147 and Bakthavatsalam v. Anjapuli and others , 2001 (1)MLJ101.

5. I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

6. Mr.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code clearly states that the Court at any stage of the proceedings, either on application or without the application of either