Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The defendant-applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 14 August 2015, passed by Addl. District Judge (Court No. 8), Mathura in Civil Revision No. 72 of 2014, whereby amendment application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C has been rejected being subsequent purchaser.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned orders perse is illegal, admittedly vendor is not interested to pursue the lis, therefore, in order to protect the suit property, the applicant would be a necessary party to the suit. He placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors; 2013(5) SCC 379.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no finding to the effect that the contesting respondent-defendant has colluded with the plaintiff and is not interested in the suit.

4. It is well-settled that the principle of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the principle that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a Court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties