Lis pendens purchasers are not necessary or proper parties in a specific performance suit, as their absence does not impede the passing of an effective decree.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 18^th March, 2020 (Annexure-5) passed in CS No.86 of 2014 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhenkanal rejected an application filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed with a prayer to implead the lis pendens purchasers as parties to the suit.

3. Short narration of facts necessary for proper adjudication of this case is that the Petitioner as Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 10^th August, 2005 entered with the Defendant through his Power of Attorney. It is alleged in the plaint that pursuant to the agreement for sale, the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh out of total consideration amount of Rs.30,50,000/- to the Power of Attorney of the Defendant. Accordingly, possession of the suit land was delivered to the Plaintiff. But before execution of the sale deed, the Power of Attorney of the Defendant died on 2^nd February, 2006. Thus, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- to which the Defendant turned a deaf ear. During pendency of the suit, Defendant alienated the suit land to different purchasers for which the Plaintiff filed an application to implead the lis pendens purchasers as Defendants and to make necessary amendment in the plaint. The said application was rejected vide order under Annexure-5. Hence, this CMP has been filed. The Defendant raised objection stating that the purchasers are no way connected with the agreement for sale, which is put to specific performance in the suit.

3.1 During pendency of the suit, Defendant died and his legal heirs, namely, Opposite Parties were substituted. During pendency of the suit, Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying, inter alia, to restrain the Defendant from alienating the suit property. Although initially an order of status quo was passed by learned trial Court but subsequently vide order dated 1^st November, 2014, application for temporary injunction was rejected. Assailing the same, Plaintiff filed FAO No.755 of 2014, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21^st April, 2017 with an observation that any alienation of the suit property that may take place during pendency of the suit that may be governed under the principles of lis pendens.

3.2 The Defendant had also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying, inter alia, to reject the plaint, which was dismissed by learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the Defendant preferred CRP No.38 of 2014 before this Court, wherein, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. But subsequently, this Court dismissed the CRP No.38 of 2014 vide order dated 21^st April, 2017.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that during continuance of the order of status quo, the Defendant executed eleven numbers of registered sale deeds alienating the suit property. Thus, the Plaintiff filed the above captioned petition for impletion of those lis pendens purchasers as parties to the suit. Opposite Parties filed objection to the said petition stating that subsequent purchasers became rightful owner of respective portions of the suit property purchased by them by virtue of the registered sale deeds executed in their favour an