Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - The present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appeal preferred by Didar Singh respondent No. 1 against order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short “CPC”) and dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been allowed.

2. A brief backdrop of the case is that Major Singh appellant filed a suit against Darshan Singh and Nirmal Singh (proforma respondents) for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.8.1995 in respect of land detailed in para 2 of the grounds of appeal situated at village Bool, 319 Tehsil and District Ludhiana. In the said suit, a prayer was made that sale deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 for land measuring 4 kanals out of the property in dispute in contravention of the agreement to sell be set aside. The suit filed by the appellant was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2005 and respondent No. 2 was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant and the sale deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 was set aside. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 against the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2005 was dismissed by the first appellate court. Respondent No. 3 sold land measuring 4 kanals purchased by him from respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 14.10.2004.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 4 kanals, detailed in head note of the plaint and the decree dated 21.1.2005 passed in civil suit No. 637/96 in favour of defendant No. 1 (Major Singh) against defendants No. 2 and 3 (Darshan Singh and Nirmal Singh respectively) is illegal, null and void and is not binding upon him. Alongwith the suit, an application was filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction. The learned trial court while hearing the application for grant of interim injunction not only dismissed the application but also rejected the plaint by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC by holding that the suit being not maintainable is barred by law and the plaint is liable to be rejected.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, an appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1, that has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide order impugned in the present proceedings.

5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that suit filed by the appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 19.8.1995 against respondents No. 2 and 3 was instituted in the year 1996 and it culminated into the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2005 passed in his favour that has attained finality. It is further argued that sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 qua part of the suit land i.e. land measuring 4 kanals vide sale deed dated 14.10.2004 is clearly barred by the principle of lis pendence and thus respondent No. 1 is bound by the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2005, later affirmed in appeal. It is further argued that Didar Singh respondent No. 1 by misusing and abusing process of law filed the suit for declaration despite being a purchaser pendente lite and the said fact is duly incorporated in the plaint filed by him. It is further argued that plea of bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice of litigation is not available to a transferee pendente lite, therefore, the respondent cannot maintain a suit by taking plea of bona fide purchaser without notice of litigation. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of this Court Inderjeet Wadhwa vs. Jagjit and another 2005(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 316. It is further argued that the learned trial court rightly rejected the plaint on the grou