WPMS 1659/2006 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Sri Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. In a suit for specific performance, an injunction was operating against the defendant restraining him from alienating the property. In spite of the injunction, it is alleged that the defendant had sold out the property in part to various persons. Accordingly, an amendment application was filed to include the subsequent facts as well as to implead subsequent transferees as necessary defendants. The trial court, after considering the material evidence on record, partly allowed the amendment application, but rejected that part of the application, by which the subsequent transferees were sought to be brought on record. The trial court was of the opinion that it was not necessary for the subsequent transferees to be impleaded as necessary parties and the suit, if decreed, would operate against them also. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The principle of lis pendens contemplated under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply. The Court also finds that under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, a specific performance of a contract can be enforced against any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to a contract except a transferee for value who has paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. It is not known as to whether the transferee had purchased the property in good faith and whether he had notice of the original contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that in spite of the fact that the principle of lis pendens would apply and the decree, if any, can be executed under Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, nonetheless, in order to avoid all controversies, in the interest of justice, it was necessary to implead contd……2/- -2- the subsequent transferees. The court below committed an error in rejecting the application of the plaintiff to that effect. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order rejecting the amendment application in part is quashed to that extent. The amendment application is allowed in toto subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand), which shall be deposited by the plaintiff before the trial court within four weeks from today. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the defendant. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 29-12-2011 SP