Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Manish Nigam, Advocate, for petitioner. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, despite notice. Therefore, this writ petition was heard ex parte and judgment was reserved.

2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 7.9.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 12, Deoria, rejecting application No. 111KA2 filed by plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for seeking impleadment of Sri Vijay Pratap, Ram Pravesh and Ajay, as defendants No. 5, 6 and 7, and for addition of certain paragraphs in the plaint, bringing on record subsequent facts of transfer of property in dispute by defendants No. 3 and 4 in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 vide sale-deed dated 10.12.1999. The writ petition is also directed against revisional order dated 25.1.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Deoria, dismissing petitioner’s Revision and confirming Trial Court’s order dated 7.9.2010.

3. The facts in brief, giving rise to present dispute, are as under.

4. Petitioner, Ram Naresh, instituted Original Suit No. 1697 of 1983, for specific performance of contract, by enforcing agreement dated 19.11.1974 relating to Plots No. 604 M, 605M, 606M, 607M, 608M and 609M measuring a total area of 2 acres which was executed by Sri Kishun, predecessor of respondent No. 3 and 4 for a total consideration of Rs. 10,000/- out of which it was alleged that Rs. 4,000/- was paid by petitioner to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in advance and rest Rs. 6000/- was payable at the time of execution of sale-deed. It was mentioned in the agreement that since consolidation proceedings are going on, permission of consolidation authorities is necessary before transfer and after obtaining permission the sale-deed would be executed.

5. The suit was contested by defendants by filing written statement. During pendency of suit, respondents 3 and 4 allegedly executed a registered sale-deed dated 10.12.1999 of 2/3 portion of Chak No. 506 including plots in dispute, in Original Suit No. 1697 of 1983, in favour of Vijay Pratap, Ram Pravesh and Ajay, all sons of Ram Nagina Yadav. Petitioner claimed that the said information came to his notice in the second week of December, 1999 and after getting information of the said sale-deed, plaintiff, i.e., petitioner, filed an amendment application for impleadment of subsequent purchaser as also to incorporate certain paragraphs in the plaint to bring on record subsequent events and also for addition of a relief, i.e., cancellation of sale-deed dated 10.12.1999. The said amendment application was contested by defendants by filing their objection. The aforesaid amendment application, Paper No. 73-Ka2, dated 14.8.2000 was rejected vide Trial Court by order dated 10.11.2009. It held that under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”) the transactions ‘lis pendens’ would also be subject to result of suit and, therefore, amendment sought by plaintiff was unnecessary.

6. Again another application, i.e., paper No. 110-Ka2 dated 12.1.2010 was filed by petitioner for impleadment of subsequent purchasers of property in dispute and also for addition of paragraph 10A in the plaint so as to bring on record subsequent events. This application was also opposed by defendant vide objection dated 15.2.2010. Trial Court vide order dated 7.9.2010 rejected this application holding that once application has been rejectedearlier, no second application for the same purpose would lie and that is also barred by principles of constructive res-judicata. Petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 161 of 2010 challenging order dated 7.9.2010 before District Judge, Deoria. Revisional Court, however, rejected the said revision confirming order of Trial Court holding that neither impleadment of subsequent purchasers is necessary nor they are otherwise necessary or proper party to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance of th