Impleadment of subsequent purchasers in a suit for specific performance is necessary to prevent adverse effects on their interests, as highlighted under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

2. The revision has arisen from the order dated 13.03.2003 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court, Bulandshahar in Original Suit No. 1 of 1997.

3. It is not in dispute that Sri Ashok Kumar Singhal and Sri Varun Kumar Singhal, who have been directed to be impleaded are the subsequent purchasers of part of disputed property and are bound to be affected adversely in case the suit of plaintiff is decreed. Therefore, in view of Apex Court's decision in Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors.,2013 (2) ARC 121 : (2013) 5 SCC 397 they have rightly been impleaded. Relying on aforesaid decision and some other decisions, this Court in Ram Naresh Vs. The Additional District Judge and others, 2015(5) ADJ 343 : 2015 (2) ARC 412 has held as under:

"30. Recently in Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 397 : 2013 (2) ARC 121, the Court has again reviewed the law in respect to the status of a subsequent purchaser whether he is necessary and proper party and must be impleaded in a pending suit for specific performance. The question, which was considered by Court, as formulated in para 16 of the judgment is "Whether if the appellant who is the transferee pendente lite having notice and knowledge about the pendency of the suit for specific performance and order of injunction can be impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour by the defendant Sawhneys." Referring to Section 52 of Act, 1882, it was observed that doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground 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 this Section does not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation.

31. The Court in Thomson Press (India) Limited (supra) also referred to Section 19 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1963")and Order 1, Rule 10. With reference to Order 1, Rule 10, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay, 1992 (2) SCC 524 : 1992 (2) ARC 57 and said that desirable consequence of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions. It quoted with approval Amon Vs. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER 273, observing that true test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of applicants' rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject-matter of the action, if those rights could be established. The test is: "May the order for which the Plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights?". With reference to Section 19 of Act, 1963, the Court said that a contract for specific performance may be enforced against the parties to the contract and the persons mentioned in the said section. The suit for specific performance cannot be enforced against a person who is a transferee from the vendor for valuable consideration and without notice of the original contract which is sought to be enforced in the suit. Hon'ble M.Y.Eqbal, J, in His Lordship's judgment, took the view that a subsequent purchaser, with notice, is to be added as party defendant in the suit relying on its earlier decisions in R.C.Chandiok Vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal, AIR 1971 SC 1238 and Dwarka Prasad Singh Vs. Harikant Prasad Singh AIR 1973 SC 655 . His Lordship T.S.Thakur, J. in his separate but concurring judgment, referred to earlier decisions in Nagubai Ammal Vs. B.Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593 ; Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj 2010 (8) SCC 1 : 2010 (2) ARC 683; A. Nawab John Vs. V.N.Subramaniyam, 2012 (2) ARC 652 : 2012 (7) SCC 738 and Jayar