The central legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of property during the pendency of a suit without court permission is in violation of the doctrine of lis pendens and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

V.K. BIST, J. –

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.4.2007 (annexure No.7), passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun as well as the judgment and order dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure No.9) passed by Addl. District Judge/1st F.T.C., Dehradun.

2. Concisely, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.5, namely, Smt. Radhika Sarin was the owner and in possession by virtue of sale-deed dated 30.3.2000 over 0.26 acres of land of Khasra No. 512M., situated at Mauja Dhakpatti, Pargana-Kendriyadoon, District Dehradun. As the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were trying to interfere in Smt. Radhika Sarin's possession over the land in dispute, she on 30.4.2003, instituted Original Suit No. 239 of 2003, Smt. Radhika Sarin v. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and another against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in her peaceful possession and ownership over the land in dispute. Notices were Issued to the defendants by the Trial Court and after filing the written statement of respondent No.4, the Trial Court vide order dated 8.5.2003, directed the parties to maintain status-quo over the land in question. The respondent No. 3 also turned up before the Trial Court and filed his written statement with the counter claim to pass mandatory injunction for demolition of the wall constructed by respondent No. 5. It is asserted in the petition that during pendency of said suit, the petitioner purchased the land in question from respondent No.5 and one Varun Sarin vide sale-deed dated 27.12.2005 and the interest of petitioner became involved in the said suit. Accordingly, on 4.4.2007, the petitioner moved an application (paper No. 98c-2) under Order XXII, Rule 10 read with Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) before the Trial Court with the prayer seeking permission of his impleadment as plaintiff in the above suit. Against which, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed their objection (paper No. 100c-2). On 13.4.2007, the Trial Court rejected the application (paper No. 98c-2). Aggrieved with the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 2007, Rajeev Berry v. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and others before the District Judge, Dehradun. Said Misc. Appeal was later on transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Dehradun who vide judgment and order dated 31.5.2007 also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Hence this petition.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 by his attorney holder, in which ownership of respondent No.5 in respect of the land in question has been denied with the assertion that the respondent No.3 is the lawful owner in possession of the property in question. It is further stated that no sale-deed could have been executed by any parties during the pendency of the suit, and such sale, if any, is hit by doctrine of lis-pendens. It is further asserted that the learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 13.4.2007 rejecting the application for impleadment of the petitioner, held that application was not legally maintainable, the petitioner was neither necessary nor the party by virtue of section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Lastly, it is stated that the orders of Courts below are justified and reasonable and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Ram Ji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. M.M. Lamba with Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocates for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

5. The Trial Court vide order dated 13.4.2007 while rejecting the application (paper No. 98c-2) has observed that the applicant/petitioner has moved the application just to obscure the subject matter in the suit which is nothing but merely the delaying tactics adopted by the applicant. The