The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of lis pendens and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, along with the wide discretion of the court in adding parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions.

Anil Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner/Ram Pyare Verma has filed a suit for injunction against Sri Bans Raj Singh registered as Regular Suit No. 406 of 1984 (Ram Pyare Vs. Banshraj), during the pendency of the same, Sri Bas Raj Singh has died, as such an application has been moved in order to bring his legal representatives on record, allowed by order dated 07.08.2010.

3. Thereafter, Sri Balram Singh/O.P. No. 4 moved an application before the court below/Small Cause Courts Act to be made a party in Regular Suit No. 406 of 1984 on the ground that the land in dispute has been purchased by him by way of a sale deed to which the petitioner has filed objection, allowed by order dated 03.11.2000 passed by O.P. No. 2.

4. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2000, Ram Pyare Verma Vs. Balram Singh and others), dismissed by order dated 28.01.2002 passed by the appellate court/3rd Additional District Judge, Faizabad with a direction that Balram Singh is a necessary and property for adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit with an observation that defendant No. 1/1-Sri Ram Narain Singh has already been made as party/defendant in the suit by the plaintiff himself. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2000 and 28.02.2002 passed by O.P. Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, present writ petition has been filed.

5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, in order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, quoted as under: -

"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto. - During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government] [***] of [any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.

[Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force."

6. Further, Doctrine of lis pendens is expressed in the maxim "ut lite pendente nihil innovetur". It imposes a prohibition on transfer or otherwise dealing of any property, during the pendency of a suit, provided the conditions laid down in Section 52 of the Act are satisfied.

7. The principle of lis pendens, it is said, owe its origin to the maxim of Roman Law "Rem de qua controversia prohib mur in acrum dedicate", which means, where the subject in dispute owing to contest passes into the custody of the judiciary, parties to it are under an obligation not to withdraw it from the protection of the Judge.

8. The Apex Court in Jagan Singh Vs. Dhanwanti, : 2012(2) SCC 628 has favoured to apply principle of lis pendens irrespective of the fact, whether there was any stay order passed by Court or not. The Court said:

"If such a view is not taken, it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination if alienations pendente lite were permitted to prevail. The explanation to thi