Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rakesh Pandey assisted by Sri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.3.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad rejecting the petitioner’s application for impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2004, Mathan Singh and others v. Khajan Singh and others.

2. The respondent No. 9 executed a registered sale-deed on 5.12.1986 in favour of the defendant/respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff/respondent-Ist set filed Original Suit No. 163 of 1989 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hapur Ghaziabad (Khajan Singh and others v. Mathan Singh and others), seeking cancellation of the sale-deed, during pendency of the suit, the defendant/respondent Nos. 7 and 8 executed a registered sale-deed of the suit property on 20.12.2001 and 2.12.2003, respectively, in favour of the petitioner i.e. transferee pendente lite. The suit was decreed on 21.4.2004.

3. The defendant/respondents IInd set filed Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2004 before the District Judge, Ghaziabad and during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 7 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 to amend the written statement which was rejected by the lower appellate Court on 1.9.2014, aggrieved, the respondent No. 7 filed Writ Petition No. 63332 of 2005, Mathan Singh v. Khajan Singh and this Court vide interim order dated 30.9.2005 stayed the further proceedings of Civil Appeal.

4. Respondent No. 7 moved an application to withdraw the writ petition on 3.12.2012. The petitioner apprehending that withdrawal of the writ petition would adversely affect his interest in the suit property, the petitioner/transferee pendente lite moved an impleadment application in the writ petition on 3.12.2012. Application to withdraw the writ petition was allowed on 12.12.2013 and this Court directed the petitioner to resort to appropriate proceedings as admissible under law before the appellate Court.

5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner moved an application under Order 22 Rule 10 in the pending civil appeal on 16.12.2013 to which objections was filed by plaintiff/respondent-Ist set; the appellate Court rejected the application for impleadment by the impugned order dated 31.3.2014 which is assailed in the present petition.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is transferee pendente lite and the conduct of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 clearly reflects that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 had lost interest in the suit property and hence the application under Order 22 Rule 10 to protect the interest in the suit property; Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not impose any bar of being impleaded as party in civil appeal, Section 52 only states that the transferee pendente lite will be bound by the decision of the suit. Since respondent Nos. 7 and 8 had lost interest in the proceedings and have colluded with the plaintiff/respondent Ist set which is evident from the fact that respondent No. 7 had withdrawn the writ petition filed against the rejection of the amendment application, thus in case, the petitioner is not impleaded the appeal would be decided unattended by an uninterested party. The appellate proceedings was stayed by this Court on 30.9.2005 and after withdrawal of the writ petition the impleadment application was filed.

7. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and investors, (2013) 5 SCC 397 and Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and others, (2001) 6 SCC 534.

8. In rebuttal, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Ist set, submits that the suit property was transferred prior to the judgment and decree of the trial Court