IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3673 of 2010 Date of decision:- 5.10.2010 Ashwani Kumar and others ......petitioners vs. Suresh Kumar and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by learned trial Court on 19.2.2010 whereby respondents No. 1 and 2 herein were ordered to be impleaded as assignee of defendants No. 9 and 10. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the said plaintiffs have become owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas by open, continuous and hostile possession. Respondents No. 1 and 2 along with one Darshan Kaur claim to have purchased the property measuring 3 kanals 3 marlas vide registered sale deeds dated 8.7.2005 and 4.1.2006 from defendants No. 9 and 10 during the pendency of the suit. Subsequently, Darshan Kaur has sold his share in favour of Ashok Kumar-respondent No.3. The appellants have sought to be substituted as the assignees of the original defendants. Defendants No. 9 and 10 have sold the property during the pendency of the suit to the applicants. As a purchaser, during the pendency of the suit, such sale is subject to doctrine of lis pendence and shall not confer better title in favour of the vendees than their vendors had in the property. But since, defendants No. 9 and 10 have sold the property, during the pendency of the suit, the applicants have been rightly impleaded as assignees of the said defendants. As assignees, the applicants are entitled to continue with the suit having stepped into the shoes of defendants No. 9 and 10. The vendees have no independent right to resist the suit of the plaintiffs on any other ground than the ground which were available to the defendants No. 9 and 10. Thus, I do not find material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revision stands allowed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 5.10.2010 preeti