JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The moot question which needs determination in this Writ Petition is whether a person who is not a party to a suit but has purchased certain property after the preliminary decree was passed in the suit for partition can be impleaded as a party in the final decree proceeding.

2. The short facts of the case are that the present opposite party No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 12 of 1990 for partition in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Balasore. Judg¬ment and preliminary decree were passed in the suit on 16.11.1992 and 28.11.1992 respectively declaring the shares of the plaintiff and the defendants. Since the parties could not amicably partition the property as per the preliminary decree, the plaintiff initiated final decree proceeding. While the matter stood thus, the present petitioner claiming to have purchased some land from Anadi Panda, a co-sharer (original defendant No. 1, since deceased) by a registered sale deed dated 6.1.1995 filed an application in the final decree proceeding with a prayer before the Court below to direct the survey-knowing commissioner to allot the land purchased by him in his favour. He also filed another petition under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC to implead him as a party to the final decree proceeding. The prayer of the peti¬tioner having been rejected, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. According to Mr. S.P.Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner having purchased land from a co-sharer in whose favour the land had been allotted, he is a necessary party to be impleaded in the final decree proceeding. He further submitted that the rights of the petitioner would be affected and great prejudice would be caused to him unless he is impleaded as a party in the final decree proceeding and the land purchased by him is allotted to his share.

4. In support of his contention, Mr. Misra relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Debendra v. Umakanta, AIR 1988 Orissa 11, and submitted that the events happening subsequent to the preliminary decree can also be taken into consideration and decided at the stage of final decree proceeding. He also relied upon another decision of this Court in the case of Jamal Mohammad v. Saukat, 74 (1992) CLT 962, and submitted that the Court even has the suo motu power to implead parties for final adjudication of the inter se disputes. According to him, the Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner, who has purchased the share of one of the cosharers in whose favour the land pur¬chased by him had been allotted, to be impleaded as a party to the final decree proceeding.

5. Mr. A. K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1, at the other hand, forcefully submitted that a trans¬feree pendente lite without the leave of the Court cannot, as of right, seek his impleadment as a party to the suit. In the present case, petitioner being a pendente lite transferee, the Court below has rightly rejected his petition to implead him in the final decree proceeding. According to Mr. Rath, the transfer made in favour of the petitioner is hit by the principles of lis pendens, and as such no right has accrued to him and the Court below has rightly rejected the petition for impletion. It is also submitted that during pendency of the final decree proceeding the vendor of the petitioner had no title to any particular portion of the joint family property and as such the petitioner cannot claim title over any portion of the joint family property. In support of his contention, Mr. Rath relied upon the decision in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatun v. Nabi Hassan Saheb, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 191.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the preliminary decree was passed in the suit as long back as on 28.11.1992. In the judgment and preliminary decree, the shares of all the cosharers were carved ou