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 but on those who derive title pendente lite. The provision of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act does not indeed anull the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but renders it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation.

5. The Supreme Court in Vinod Seth v. Devendra Bajaj; 2010 (8) SCC 200, held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not render transfers effected during the pendency of the suit void but only render such transfers subservient to the rights as may be eventually determined by the Court.

6. In Thomson Press (supra) the Supreme Court upon considering the law on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act held that transferee pendente lite who had purchased the entire suit property is entitled to be added as a party-defendant to the suit.

“55. We are not on virgin ground insofar as that question is concerned. Decisions of this Court have dealt with similar situations and held that a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party to the suit lest the transferee suffered prejudice on account of the transferor losing interest in the litigation post transfer. In Khemchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu Hari Patti, 1983(1) SCC 403, this Court held that:

“6......The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding.....”

7. The Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon; 2005 (11) SCC 403, observed as follows :

“A transferor pendente lite may not even defend the title properly as he has no interest in the same or collude with the plaintiff in which case the interest of the purchaser pendente lite will be ignored. To avoid such situations the transferee pendente lite can be added as a party defendant to the case provided his interest is substantial and not just peripheral. This is particularly so where the transferee pendente lite acquires interest in the entire estate that forms the subject-matter of the dispute.

8. The Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited; 2012(8) SCC 384, after considering its earlier judgment in BiBi Jubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another; 2004(1) SCC 191, held as follows :

41. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are:

41.1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence