IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.11 of 2008 ---- 1. Renu Devi, wife of Vir Kunwar Singh 2. Vir Kunwar Singh, son of Singashan Singh. Both are resident of Village- Shri Nagar, Post Office-Lagadpura, Police Station- Mairwa, District-Siwan. Versus 1. Jamadar Dusadh 2. Bindesari Dusadh. Both are sons of Late Jhagru Dusadh Resident of Village-Shri Nagar, Post Office- Lagadpura, Police Station- Mairwa, District-Siwan. 3. Janaki Devi, Daughter of Khublal Manjhi, wife of Gautam Manjhi, Resident of Village + Post Office- Kusahara, Police Station- Andar, District-Siwan. 4. Monaki Devi, wife of Subash Manjhi, daughter of Khublal Manjhi. Resident of Village + Post Office- Usari, Police Station- M.H.Nagar, District-Siwan. 5. Lallan Dusadh 6. Kamla Dusadh Both sons of Late Bahraich Dusadh. 7. Lalita 8. Kabita Both are daughters of Late Bahraichi Dusadh. All are resident of Village- Shri Nagar, Post Office- Lagadpura, Police Station- Mairwa, District-Siwan. -- Defendants-Respondents-Opposite Parties 1st Set. 9. Haribilash Prasad, son of Late Bishwa Nath Prasad 10. Bachcha Prasad, son of Late Radhe Shyam Prasad Both Resident of Village-Mairwa, Police Station-Mairwa, District-Siwan. -- Plaintiffs-appellants-Opposite Party 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 27.10.2009 This civil revision has been filed by the intervenor- petitioners challenging order dated 22.09.2007 by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum Fast Tract Court-5, Siwan rejected their application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil - 2 - Procedure for their substitution in place of appellant no.2 Shiv Nath Dusadh. 2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.265 of 1960 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-opposite parties 2nd Set for partition of their 1/3rd share in the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed in part on contest vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.1965 by the learned Munsif, Siwan. 3. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No.221 of 1965 (51 of 1970) which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge- III, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 26.03.1980. 4. Against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the defendants-opposite parties filed Second Appeal No.386 of 1980 which was allowed vide order dated 21.09.2004 remanding the matter to the learned court of appeal below on a limited point. 5. While the title appeal was pending after remand before the lower appellate court, the intervenors-petitioners filed an application for being substituted in place of appellant no.2 Shiv Nath Dusadh, who being in dire need of money had executed sale deed in favour of the intervenors-petitioners during the pendency of the case. 6. The learned court of appeal below considered the matter in detail and found that the suit was of the year 1960 and the matter in the lower appellate court is pending since long and was - 3 - sought to be complicated by the intervenors-petitioners. It was also found that since the alleged sale deed was said to have been executed during the pendency of the title appeal, the principle of lis pendens would be applicable. 7. It was also found that the sale deed was executed by one of the appellants, who had already lost in the suit, and the said appellant had also not taken permission of the court. In the said circumstances, the learned court below relying upon the settled principle of law, i.e. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 173 and also in case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy & Ors, reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1332, rejected the application of the intervenor-petitioners. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)