JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The order dated 12.3.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Bhadrak in T.S. No.6 of 1998-I/383 of 2001 rejecting a petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC is assailed by the petitioners seeking to be impleaded as parties to the Tile Suit.

2. As the records reveal, the aforesaid Tile Suit had been filed by present opposite party No.1 inter alia praying for partition of the suit land. Present opposite party No.3 who is defendant No.2 in the said suit filed his written statement taking the stand that he has sold the suit land to petitioner No.1 and another Smt. Brajarani Das by means of a registered sale deed dated 11.9.1998 and has delivered possession thereof to them and they are possessing the same peacefully. It was alleged that after filing his written statement, opposite party No.3 was exhibiting no interest to contest the suit. Therefore apprehend¬ing great prejudice and irreparable loss to her, petitioner No.1 prayed before the Court below under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead her to protect her right to the suit property. The said petition was strongly resisted by opposite party No.1 who is the plaintiff in the suit on the ground that petitioner No.1 being a lis pendens purchaser no right in respect of the suit property had accrued to her and thus she was not a necessary party to the suit and that the petition was liable to be rejected.

3. The Court below after discussing the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the suit property having been trans¬ferred to the third party-intervener during pendency of the suit, that too without leave of the Court, the said third party-intervener was not a necessary party to the proceeding and thus rejected the prayer. Being aggrieved the intervener has approached this Court. The subsequent vendees of aforesaid Smt. Brajarani Das, who had also filed a similar petition before the Court for being implead¬ed as parties to the suit, have joined petitioner No.1 in this Writ Petition as petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, admittedly defendant No.2 had a share in the suit property. By a registered sale deed he has alienated the suit property in favour of petitioner No.1 and the vendor of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. He filed written statement in the suit admitting the said fact, but later on exhibited his disinterestedness to contest the suit for which the petitioners apprehend that their right to the suit land may hamper, for which they filed petitions before the Court below to be impleaded as parties to the suit to protect their right. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party No.1 submits that the petitioners being lis pendens purchasers have acquired no right to the suit land. Thus any right to the suit land having accrued in their favour, the question of protection of such right does not arise, and the Court below having rightly rejected the prayer this Court may not interfere with the impugned order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record. Admittedly defendant No.2 has alienated the suit land by a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. This fact has also been clearly stated by him in his written statement. The allegation of the petitioner is that after filing his written statement, defendant No.2 is exhib¬iting his disinterestedness in contesting the suit.

6. Law is well settled that an intervener who has purchased some land by registered sale deed steps into the shoes of his vendor having acquired right, title and interest to the said land. In the present case, whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 is valid or not and whether right, title and interest to the land sold have passed on to the lis pendens pur¬chasers and what would be the right of such interveners are qu