IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.168 of 2008 KUMAR OM PRAKASH Versus KUTUB ALI MIAN @ KRITWALLI MIAN & ANR ----------- 2 9.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by an order dated 4.12.2007 refusing his application filed for impleadment of party in a suit seeking specific performance of contract filed by one Kritwalli Mian plaintiff opposite party no. 1 agaisnt Amarendra Kumar Singh defendant opposite party no. 2. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that though the suit came to be filed in the year 1998, the petitioner having purchased the land in question by a sale deed dated 9.6.2000 became a necessary party to the suit as the right of the petitioner was going to be affected. It was further submitted that when an application was filed on 9.12.2005 under order 1 rule 10 by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party to the suit the same ought to have been not rejected by the Court below as it would amount to committing both material irregularity as also jurisdictional error. Assailing the findings of the court below that the petitioner was neither a necessary party nor proper party, Counsel for the petitioner had placed his reliance on judgments of this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Gupta Vs. Ganga Prasad & Ors. reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 242, Khurshid Alam Vs. Md. Zahir & Ors. reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 847 and Bhola Ram Sah & Anr. Vs. Fudo Sah & Ors. reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 510. This Court having taken into consideration the 2 aforementioned submissions would find that the ratio of the aforementioned three cases would find that the reliance does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. In the case of Chandra Prakash Gupta (supra) the purchase was made prior to not only institution of the suit but even prior to the agreement for sale. Therefore in the facts of that case this court had held doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act could not have been made applicable and finding that the Court below had refused to implead such a person as a party to the suit, this Court had interfered with the same. Coming to the second case relied by the petitioner in the case of Khurshid Alam Vs. Md. Zahir & Ors. reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 847, this Court is of the view that the facts therein were entirely different. In that case, Deepak Kumar Arya the purchaser was made party in this appellate court because the original application during the stage of appeal having sold the such property had left interest in taking interest in the appeal and the appellate court had accordingly allowed impleadment of purchaser. Such impleadment of purchaser having been assailed by the plaintiff respondent no. 1 before this court was not interfered by this court holding such exercise of discretion of the appellate court was not arbitrary. This court in the case of Khurshid Alam (supra) did not lay down a law that in any and every suit for specific performance, the purchaser becomes a necessary party and must be added as party. Finally the ratio of judgment of this Court in the case of Bhola Ram Sah (supra) would not be applicable because that was 3 not the suit relating to specific performance of contract. As a matter of fact, this issue with regard to the addition of party in a suit for specific performance has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & Anr. reported in AIR 2004 SC 173 wherein after discussing all the aspects, law has been laid down that in a case of suit of specific performance any alienation made during the pendency of the suit would be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the purchaser cannot be considered to be as a necessary or proper party to such suit. As discussed above the petitioner is a purchaser after the institution of suit for specific performance and thus his such purchase would be strictly governed by the doctrine of lis pendens and he cannot be held a either necessary party or property in terms of order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. There being no merit in this Civil Revision application, the same must be and is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)