IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.959 of 2008 KAMLESH TIWARI & ORS Versus RAMA TIWARI & ORS ----------- 3 16/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.3.2008, whereby and whereunder, their application for impleadment under order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the court below with a clear finding that the suit being of the year 1996, the plaintiff from whom the petitioners have purchased the land had alienated the same suit land in the year 2003 without taking permission of the court. The court below accordingly has come to a finding that mere plea of the petitioners that they would be now affected in view of sale deed in their favour is not correct because the doctrine of lispendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will govern rights of the parties. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the only apprehension of the petitioners is that when the entire suit land which were sold by the plaintiff to the petitioners and he ( Plaintiff ) in fact had also left doing pairvi and taking any interest in the suit, the suit 2 may be dismissed without contest adversely affecting the right of the petitioner. It was explained that was the sole reason that a prayer was made for addition of the petitioners as parties to the suit. This aspect of the matter however was pressed orally by the counsel for the petitioners which does not find support from the application which was filed by them for such impleadment which is annexure-1 to this Civil Revision Application. It has to be noted that the sale deed favour of petitioner is dated 10.11.2003 but their application for impleadment came to be filed on 5.1.2004 and that too in two paragraphs and does not disclose any material in detail, muchless, any allegation that the plaintiff had been left with no interest after he had allegedly parted with the entire share which is said to have been purchased by the petitioners on 10.11.2003. There is infact nothing to show that in between 10.11.2003 to 5.1.2004 the plaintiff had left doing pairvi in the case. The court below infact has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order especially when it is found that the original plaintiff also wanted that 3 the partition be effected in the family of the defendant for securing his share and thereafter when the written statement was filed by the defendant stating that there was no partition in the family and that the vendor of the plaintiff had wrongly executed such sale deed in his favour, the plaintiff surreptitiously and without obtaining order of the court had also sold the land in question to the petitioners. In such view of the matter, the court below has rightly came to a conclusion that the doctrine of lispendens would govern the rights of the petitioners and for that purpose they were not required to be added as a party. This Court does not find any error in such approach of the court below and accordingly this civil revision application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar