Civil Revision No. 3996 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4439 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.07.2011 *** Pritam Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. Lakhmi Chand & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 31.5.2011 by dint of which her request for impleadment as defendant in the pending suit between the respondents, has been declined by the Court below. Heard. It is evident from the claim of the petitioner is that defendant Dhani Ram has sold the property involved in the suit vide registered sale- deed dated 18.2.2010 and as such, she is a necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit. Admittedly, the said transaction has taken place during the pendency of the suit. It is settled principle of law that any transfer made during pendency of the proceedings before the Court, is hit by lis pendens and the transferee is bound by the decree. Therefore, taking into account these facts the learned Court below has rightly concluded that the transferee pendente-lite i.e. the petitioner is not a necessary party. Therefore, in the light of these facts, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and the revision, being without any merit, is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) July 25, 2011 JUDGE Jiten