THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1488 of 2022

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2022 in I.A.No. 473 of 2021 in A.S.No. 41 of 2015 before the VII Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Mr. M. N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Imran Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. Aarifa Imran Khan, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and perused the record.

3. The petitioner herein filed the underlying appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No. 162 of 2006 dated 04.12.2012 filed for recovery of possession.

4. The petitioner herein filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No. 473 of 2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking to implead the subsequent purchaser as proposed defendant No.3 in the appeal. The said application was filed on the ground that Respondent No.1 herein had alienated the subject property vide sale deed dated 18.03.2013 in favor of the Respondent No.3 herein who is the wife of the Respondent No.2, before filing of the underlying appeal.

5. The Court below dismissed the said application holding that since the appeal was preferred with a delay and was numbered in 2015, and also as there was no order preventing the Respondents herein from alienating the property on 18.07.2013. The Court below further held that in case the Petitioner herein succeeds in the appeal, he had other remedies under law, therefore doctrine of lis pendens cannot be invoked to defeat the right of the proposed Respondent No.3 who claims to be a bona fide purchaser.

6. The present revision is preferred aggrieved by the said order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the suit scheduled property is transferred during the pendency of a suit. He further contends that if the pendency of the suit or litigation is within the knowledge of the transferee, the scheme of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code, casts a duty on him, to make an application seeking leave of the court to continue the suit in place of the transferor. It is thus, contended that, in case of failure to do so, the result of the suit would be binding on such a transferee.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that, the Respondent No.3 who is none other than the wife of Respondent No.2 despite being aware of the pendency of the appeal had not made any effort to implead herself into the appeal, which clearly depicts that the transfer was made with a view to defeat Petitioner's appeal. Thus, it is contended that Court below erred in dismissing the implead application by terming the transaction as bona fide.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contends that Section 52 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act, 1882’) applies even after the dismissal of a suit. Thus, the purchaser is subject to lis pendens if an appeal is filed afterwards. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kirpal Kaur vs Jitender Pal Singh and Ors, [1(2015)9SCC356]

10. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the counsel for the Respondent No.2 contends that, the original suit was dismissed on 04.12.2012. Subsequently, the limitation to file an appeal expired on 12.03.2013. Thereafter, the sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 3 was executed by the Respondent No.1 on 18.07.2013, after having waited for 4 months after the expiry of limitation.

11. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that, doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to the present situation as the document was executed after the period of limitation to prefer an appeal expired.

12. It is further contended that, the knowledge of the sale deed was brought to the notice of the appellate court by way of an application to receive additional evidence in t