The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of lis pendens and the principles governing the disposal of applications for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code.

NANDITA DUBEY, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this petition is finally heard.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 19-1-2016 in Civil Suit No. 32-A/2008 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Sihora, District Jabalpur whereby the application of the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for impleading the subsequent purchasers of the suit land (Khasra No. 326 and 373) was rejected.

2. Shri R. P. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for impleading the subsequent purchaser as defendant was moved on the basis of information that during pendency of the suit defendant/respondent had sold the disputed suit land Khasra No. 326 Area 0.260 Hectare and Khasra No. 373 Area 1.500 Hectare Village Umariya to one Shri R. K. Tiwari, Smt. Sushma Gupta and Anurag Shrivastava by registered sale deeds. This fact was admitted by the defendants' witness Ravishankar Pandey (DW-1) in Para 7 of his deposition. It is further urged that as the present defendants/respondents have alienated the whole of the property and have no more interest and rights left in the suit property, the subsequent purchaser of the suit property is a necessary and proper party for complete and effective adjudication of the suit.

3. The respondents had not denied the sale of that suit land, but resisted the application on the ground of pendency of suit. It was further contended that the matter was remanded by the Appellate Court for cross-examination to the respondent witnesses, and the impleadment of new parties would further delay the case, and prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

5. Before adverting to the issue whether subsequent purchaser is a necessary party, provision of section 52 of TP Act and Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code may be referred to. section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act speaks about the doctrine of lis pendens. Section 52 reads as under :-

"52. Transfer of Property pending suit relating thereto :- During the pending 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 proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right of immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt which 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".

It is well settled that doctrine of lis pendens is based on the ground that the decision of a Court in a suit is binding not only on the litigating parties but also on those who derive title pendente lite.

6. In Rajendra Singh and ors. v. Santa Singh and ors., (1973) 2 SCC 705 the Apex Court while approving the principles laid down in Javaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami and ors., (1972) 2 SCC 200 has reiterated :-

75. The doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a Court, in which a dispute on rights or interes