Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Opposite party No.3 Kashi Nath sold the entire agricultural property in dispute in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 namely Zaibunnisa and Qamrunnisa. In the litigation which was going on before the Consolidation Authorities in between the petitioner and respondent No.3, in respect of the agricultural property in dispute, the pendente lite purchasers respondent No.6 and 7, applied for their impleadment. The application was allowed by the consolidation Officer Sadar II, Pratapgarh through order dated 13.4.2012 passed in case No.591/414 of 2011-12. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No.1715/1675 of 2012-13 Naimuddin v. Jaibunnisha and others. Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh dismissed the Revision on 27.8.2013 hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of Section 52 of T.P. Act, transferee pendente lite is bound by the judgment which is ultimately passed in the case. This argument is 100% correct. However, on the basis of this very argument pendente lite transferee deserves to be impleaded. If a judgment is bindin