The doctrine of lis pendens allows a purchaser during litigation to seek joinership in the existing suit, emphasizing judicial representation and rights.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH st ON THE 21 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 2629 of 2023 SHARAD YADAV Versus PRADEEP PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhagwan Das Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sumant Mishra- Advocate for respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5.

ORDER This misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 24/02/2023 passed in Civil Suit No. RCSA 734A/2021 by VIII Civil Judge, Senior Division Gwalior (M.P.), whereby application filed by petitioner under Order

22 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. It is the submission of the petitioner that that respondent Nos. 1 and

2 (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (defendants) before the Trial Court and suit filed by sought a declaration and a permanent injunction regarding the disputed property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sold the property to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2022. The petitioner has since been in possession of the disputed property. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court to be impleaded as a plaintiff in order to Signature Not Verified contest the suit and protect his rights. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court rejected the application based on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act . The court stated that the petitioner has the right to contest the suit in light of this provision.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this petition, submitting that the order of the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and should be set aside. The petitioner argues that because he purchased the suit land from the plaintiffs through a sale deed, he wants to protect his interest by being impleaded as a plaintiff in the current suit. Therefore, he has requested that the impugned order be set aside and the Trial Court be directed to implead him as a plaintiff.

4. Per contra, counsel for respondents/defendants supported the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and prayed for rejection of the petition.

5. Heard counsel of both the parties and perused the entire record produced by both the parties.

6. On perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Trial Court relied on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act . By virtue of the Doctrine of lis pendens, the applicants are bound by the final judgment in the suit. It was also observed that a person who has applied to the court cannot seek leave to be impleaded merely because his rights may not be duly represented in the proceedings. It is noted that the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, as well as Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code , is required to be considered. Thus, the same are reproduced as under :-

Signature Not Verified Section 52 of Transfer of property Act:-

52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto. - During the pendency 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 proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with 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 o