JUDGMENT

S. N. Dwivedi, J. - The dispute relates to some agricultural plots. Hari Ram, the appellant, filed an objection under Section 12, Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood before its amendment in 1958 in respect of those plots. He claimed to be the co-bhumidhar of the plots with Makhan, the tenth respondent. Makhan, on the other hand, claimed to be the sole bhumidhar of the plots. The Consolidation Officer forwarded the case to the Civil judge for reference to an arbitrator as contemplated by the said Act. The Civil judge framed two issues : "Whether Hari Ram is the daughter's son of Harchain or Bhikhan ? if so, has he got any share in the holding in suit ?", and referred them to the arbitrator for decision. On February 17, 1956 the arbitrator gave his award. He held that Hari Ram has one third share in the plots. Makhan filed an objection to the award before the Civil Judge under the Arbitration Act. By his order dated May 31, 1956 the Civil judge set aside the award. He held that Hari Ram was not entitled to any interest in the plots. Hari Ram then filed a writ petition in this Court. It was eventually dismissed on the ground that he had an alternative remedy of an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge. Then Hari Ram filed an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed on February 15, 1960 as time-barred. Hari Ram then filed Civil Revision No. 598 of 1960 against the order of the District Judge. The revision was filed under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure in this Court. Hari Ram and Makhan arrived at a compromise. The compromise gave plots Nos. 1319, 1320, 1325, 1327 and 1328 to Makhan and the remaining plots to Hari Ram. The revision was finally decided in terms of the compromise on November 27, 1961.

2. It may now be mentioned that already on June 3, 1960 Makhan had executed two sale deeds in favour of the respondents 4 to 9. He sold all the plots in dispute to them. They got their names mutated in the revenue records by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. However, after the compromise order of this Court in Civil Revision No. 598 of 1960 Hari Ram applied for mutation of his name. Only two of the vendees were parties in this application. On September 6, 1962 the Consolidation Officer allowed the application and expunged the names of the two vendees. Thereupon the respondents 4 to 9 filed an appeal against his order.

3. On November 19, 1962 the Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed their appeal and directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the case again after impeding all the respondents 4 to 9. On April 6, 1963 the Consolidation Officer again decided in favour of Hari Ram. On June 2, 1964, the appeal of the respondents was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. On September 19, 1964 their revision was also dismissed. Then they filed a writ petition in this Court. It has been allowed by a learned single judge.

4. Hari Ram urged before the consolidation authorities that the respondents are bound by the order of this Court in Civil Revision No. 598 of 1960 and that their purchases were affected by the rule of lis pendens. The Consolidation authorities accepted his contention. The learned single judge did not agree with their view. According to the learned judge the "proceeding terminated with the dismissal of the appeal and cannot be said to have continued beyond that date. The revision application was certainly not a continuation of the proceeding, and the doctrine of lis pendens cannot be invoked because it was filed."

5. The appeal of Hari Ram was dismissed on February 15, 1960. He filed his revision on July 7, 1960. In between these two dates on June 3, 1960 Makhan sold the plots to the respondents 4 to 9. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, we will assume that the revision was filed within reasonable time. The question is whether the sale falls within the vortex of Section 52 Transfer of Property Act which embodies the doctrine of lis pendens