Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—List revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and one Keshav since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have filed a suit for specific performance against respondent No. 8, Ganga Ram in the form of O.S. No. 437 of 1997 for specific performance of a registered agreement for sale alleged to have been executed by Ganga Ram defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on 31.10.1991. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an impleadment application stating therein that through registered sale-deed dated 23.8.1999 (during pendency of suit) he had purchased the property in dispute from Ganga Ram. The impleadment application was opposed by the plaintiffs. Trial Court/Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Jhansi rejected the impleadment application on 18.8.2004. Against the said order petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 153 of 2004, which was dismissed by A.D.J./Special Judge, (DAA), Jhansi on 22.4.2006, hence this writ petition.

2. The Courts below rejected the application placing reliance upon certain authorities according to which a rival claimant to the ownership is not a necessary or proper party in a suit for specific performance. However, in the present case, the situation is different. Petitioner did not claim that at the time of execution of the agreement he was the owner and Ganga Ram was not the owner. Petitioner’s case is that during pendency of the suit Ganga Ram, the defendant had transferred the property to him. If Ganga Ram had transferred the property to the petitioner before filing of the suit then it would have been necessary for the plaintiffs to implead the petitioner as subsequent purchaser. Accordingly, if petitioner purchased the property during pendency of the suit he could very well apply for his impleadment as subsequent purchaser. The lower revisional Court has wrongly distinguished the authority of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, AIR 2005 SC 2209 : (2005) 11 SCC 403 : 2005 (2) ARC 174. It has been held in the said authority that if during pendency of the suit interest is transferred then transferee is a necessary or at least proper party as it is a case of assignment.

3. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. It is directed that petitioner shall be impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 2. However it is clarified that petitioner will not be entitled to take any plea which cannot be taken by the defendant No. 1.

——————