Lahoti, J. -- Leave granted.

During the pendency of a civil suit relating to an immovable property, respondent 4 herein purchased the suit property from the defendants (respondents 2 and 3) by a registered deed of sale dated 24.9.1995. Respondent 4, it appears, was not aware of the pendency of the suit; rather the vendors stated in the deed of sale that the property was not a subject-matter of any litigation. On 27.11.1995, the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendants (respondents 2 and 3). On 30.5.1998, respondent 4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the decree and also making a prayer under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for being brought on record. Prayer was also made for condoning the delay in filing the application inasmuch as the ex parte decree was not in the knowledge of respondent 4. The trial Court has allowed the application condoning the delay in filing the same and held that a sufficient cause for setting aside the decree within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was made out. The appellant preferred a civil revision in the High Court which has been dismissed.

The only plea raised and vehemently urged by Shri S.N. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant before this Court, as was done before the trial Court and the High Court too, is that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC can be filed only by a defendant and by no one else. Respondent 4 is a transferee pendente lite and in the absence of his having promptly taken steps under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for being brought on record, he remains bound by the result of the suit. He must suffer the consequences of an adverse decree passed against his vendors who have not chosen to lay any challenge to the ex parte decree, submitted the learned counsel.

We have heard Shri S.N. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri Manoj Swamp, learned counsel for respondent 4. We are satisfied that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The doctrine of lis pendens expressed in the maxim "ut lite pendente nihil innovetur" (during a litigation nothing new should be introduced) has been statutorily incorporated in section 52 of the Transfer of Property _ Act, 1882. A defendant cannot, by alienating property during the pendency of litigation, venture into depriving the successful plaintiff of the fruits of the decree. The transferee pendente lite is treated in the eye of the law as a representative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor and held bound by the decree passed against the judgment-debtor though neither has the defendant chosen to bring the transferee on record by apprising his opponent and the Court of the transfer made by him nor has the transferee chosen to come on record by taking recourse to Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. In case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of any suit, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion on the Court hearing the suit to grant leave for the person in or upon whom such interest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on record. Bringing of a lis pendens transferee on record is not as of right but in the discretion of the Court. Though not brought on record the lis pendens transferee remains bound by the decree.

The present case has a peculiar feature. The transfer took place during the pendency of the suit but the decree passed ex parte in the suit is sought to be set aside not by the defendant on record but by a person who did not come or was not brought on record promptly and hence apparently appears to be a third party. However, as we have already stated hereinabove, the person would be a representative-in-interest of the defendant judgment-debtor.

The solution lies in section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It provides:

"146. Proceedings by or against representatives -- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any