JUDGMENT

B.K. NAYAK, J. - In this writ application the petitioner assails the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.423 of 2004 whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected his petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. to be impleaded as a party-defendant to the suit.

2. The present opposite party No.1 has filed the aforesaid civil suit against the present opposite party Nos.2 to 11 seeking relief of partition of the suit property and allotment of his separate share. Admittedly in FAO No.278 of 2005 (arising out of the suit) between the parties to the suit, this Court vide order dated 07.11.2006 injuncted the parties from alienating any portion of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. While the injunction order was operating, defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold a specific portion of the suit property appertaining to Plot No.1000, Khata No.1416 measuring Ac.0.200 in Mouza-Bhubaneswar to the intervenor writ petitioner vide two registered sale deeds on 13.11.2009. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. before the trial Court stating that after purchase of the said portion of the suit land while he was constructing a house thereover, the plaintiff opposite party No.1 along with some others prohibited him from proceeding with the construction stating that the said property is the subject matter of a partition suit. It was further asserted by the petitioner that his vendors (defendant Nos.1 and 2) never disclosed before him about the pendency of the suit and rather represented that the property 'was free from all encumbrances and litigation. It was, therefore, stated that the intervenor having purchased the property bona fide for value has acquired interest therein and, therefore, he being a necessary as well as proper party should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit.

The Court below has rejected the said petition by the impugned order stating that this Court in FAO No.278 of 2005 not only restrained the parties from alienating any portion of the suit property but also targeted the suit for disposal within six months and that in the meantime evidence from the side of the plaintiff has already been closed.

3. In assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the petitioner is a lis pendense purchaser, he is a bonafide transferee for value and has acquired right to the property and, therefore, he is a necessary party to the suit and should be impleaded. It is his further submission that the petitioner purchased the property being unaware of the order of injunction passed by this Court in the earlier FAO and that the sale by his vendors in violation of the injunction order does not become invalid.

Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party No.1 (plaintiff), on the other hand, relying on the decisions of the apex Court reported in (1996) 5 SCC 539; Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others and AIR 2007 SC 1332; Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy and others, submits that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were prohibited by the injunction order from selling any portion of the suit property affecting the right of the plaintiff and, therefore, the sale by them of a part of the suit land in favour of the intervenor-petitioner is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and, as such the intervenor-purchaser cannot be considered to be either a necessary or proper party to the suit. He also relies on the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 135; Surjit Singh and others etc., v. Harbans Singh and others etc.

4. The first question to be decided is whether the petitioner by virtue of his purchase of part of the suit land from defendant Nos.1 and 2 in violation or breach of the injunction order has acquired valid right, title and interest thereto or the sale is invalid? In the case of Surjit Singh (supra) where in a partition suit, in spite of order of injunction restraining the parties from alienation of any part