The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to subsequent vendees, and applications for impleadment filed in collusion with the intention to delay proceedings may be dismissed.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 17.01.2009, (Annexure P-3), rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, vide which it dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, filed by Baljit Singh, subsequent vendee, for impleading himself as a party to the suit.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, against the defendants, restraining them from interfering into his possession over the suit property.

3. In the written statement, the defendants (now respondents) claimed that they were in possession of the property, in dispute.

4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court directed the parties, to maintain status-quo regarding possession over the property, in dispute.

5. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the applicant(now revision-petitioner) claiming that he had purchased the property, in dispute, on 31.12.2007, and the defendants namely Gian Dass and Jagpal, had delivered the possession to him. It was further stated that, he being a necessary party, be impleaded.

6. In reply to the application, it was stated that the applicant, being a subsequent vendee, during the pendency of the lis, could not be impleaded as a party. It was further stated that the said application had been filed with malafide intention and in collusion with the defendants, already impleaded, as a party to the suit.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, the trial Court, dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the applicant-revision petitioner.

9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully.

10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that his vendors being parties to the suit, colluded with the plaintiff, and, as such, the witnesses were not cross-examined by their Counsel. He further submitted that with a view to protect his interest, in the property, in dispute, the applicant was a necessary party. He further submitted that the applicant did not know that any lis was pending, between the plaintiff, and his vendors. He further submitted that the trial Court dismissed the application illegally.

11. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that the application was filed by the applicant in collusion with the defendants, with a view to delay the proceedings, pending in the Court. He further submitted that the applicant had no locus standi to be impleaded as a party as he has stepped into the shoes of his vendors, who are already a party to the lis and would be bound by the decision, which may be ultimately, rendered in the same. He further submitted that the trial Court was, thus, right in dismissing the application.

12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Since the property, in dispute, was purchased by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, he could not be said to be a bonqfide purchaser, and such a sale is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act . The trial Court, was right in holding that the application had been moved by the applicant, in collusion with his vendors, who were already a party to the suit, as despite execution of the sale deed dated 31.12.2007, the defendants kept on attending the Court, and on 13.06.2008, even got the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses adjourned. It is further evident from the order dated 17.01.2009, that Mr. Hard