Subsequent purchasers of property during the pendency of a suit are not necessary or proper parties to the suit, as their interests are already bound by the doctrine of lis pendens.

K. SAMPATH, J.

1. This is an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, Order 14, Rule 8 of O.S. Rules and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleding respondents 2 to 4 defendants 1 to 4 in the suit.

2. The allegations in the affidavit are as follows:

The applicant has filed the above suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 20-5-1991 executed between the plaintiff/applicant and the defendant/first respondent in respect of the point ‘B’ Schedule property and for other reliefs. Pending suit the applicant filed an application for an injunction in O.A. No. 510/94 restraining the defendant from in any manner dealing with the plaint ‘B’ Schedule property till the disposal of the suit. An interim injunction was granted and after the first respondent entered appearance and contested the same, it was made absolute by the learned single Judge. However, the O.S. appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 57 and 58 of 1995 filed by the first respondent were allowed and the application for interim injunction was dismissed holding that any transaction would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The order of the Appellate Court had become final. The applicant recently heard from authentic source which it believes to be true that the defendant/first defendant had entered into an agreement deed with respondents 2 and 3 herein to alienate the property. The details of the agreement are not known to the applicant. The third respondent had started demolishing the building. The fourth respondent/MMDA had also sanctioned a plan for putting up a building on the plaint ‘B’ Schedule property. When the suit for specific performance was pending, if respondents 2 and 3 had entered into an agreement with the defendant/first respondent, it would be subject to the applicant suit and respondents 2 and 3 are necessary and proper parties to the suit and the rights of the plaintiff as against the defendant should be necessarily decided in the presence of respondents 2 and 3. Otherwise the decree that the applicant will get may not be enforceable against them and it would become a mere paper decree. So far as t he fourth respondent is concerned, it had originally sanctioned a plan for putting up apartments in plaint ‘B’ Schedule property and the validity of the sanctioned plan and the planning permit expired only on 25-8-1995. The fourth respondent even before the expiry of the time had sanctioned new construction plan and issued new permit to the defendant without any reference to the applicant. The fourth respondent had acted illegally and high-handedly. Therefore, it is just and necessary that the fourth respondent is to be impleaded in the suit, so that the rights of the plaintiff as against respondents 1 to 3 could be decided in the present suit along with the fourth respondent. None of the respondents could have any valid or just objections for impleading respondents 2 to 4 as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit.

3. The prayer in the application is that respondents 2 to 4 have to be impleaded as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit and the plaintiff applicant must be permitted to carry out the consequential amendments in the plaint

4. The first respondent/defendant has filed counter to the following effect: An agreement was entered into between the applicant and this respondent for sale of an extent of 3 grounds 600 sq. ft. in the ‘B’ Schedule of the suit property for Rs. 18 lakhs; that the plaintiff/applicant would hand over a flat in the third floor to be constructed by the applicant/plaintiff, the cost having been Worked out to be Rs. 9 lakhs, the total sale consideration thus being Rs. 27 lakhs. At the time the agreement was ent ered into, the first respondent/defendant received an advance of Rs. 1.25 lakh and another sum of Rs. 1 lakh from Gem Cables and Conducts Ltd. by way of advance for allotment of flat. The applicant/plaintiff obtained the planning permit from the fourth respondent on 26-8-1992 describing this respondent/defendant as the ow