JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Gajraj for setting aside the order dated 12.6.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. III, Faridabad, whereby his application for setting aside the order dated 5.4.2006, permitting appellant Karamjeet Singh (respondent herein) to withdraw his appeal: and further for allowing the petitioner to join as appellant in the appeal and deciding the same on merits, has been dismissed.
2. From the facts stated in the impugned order, it appears that in the year 1989, Jai Narain Yadav, plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against Chet Ram and Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who were impleaded as defendants No. 1 and 2 in the said suit. On 2.4.1990, defendants, Chet Ram and Smt. Shakuntla Devi appeared and filed the written statement. Subsequently, Jai Narain Yadav died and his legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs. In the year 1993, an application was filed by the legal representatives of plaintiff Jai Narain Yadav under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Karamjeet Singh as defendant No. 3 during the pendency of the suit. The defendants Chet Ram and Smt. Shakuntla Devi suffered a decree dated 1.8.1990 in favour of defendant No. 3. The said application was allowed and Karamjeet Singh was impleaded as defendant No. 3. Karamjeet Singh also filed written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency of the said suit, Karamjeet Singh sold the suit property in favour of Rohtash and Smt. Anguri vide registered sale deed dated 5.4.2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the purchases sale deed dated 5.4.2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the purchases lis pendence i.e. Rohtash and Smt. Anguri did not file an application for impleading them as party. Ultimately, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on the record, the suit of the plaintiff Jai Narain Yadav was decreed on 18.11.2002.
3. Against the said judgment and decree, Karamjeet Singh filed an appeal on 24.12.2002. During the pendency of the said appeal, Rohtash and Smt. Anguri sold the suit property to petitioner Gajraj. It is pertinent to mention that Gajraj did not file an application for becoming party in the appeal on the basis of the sale deed vide which he had purchased the suit land during the pendency of the appeal. On 5.4.2006, Karamjeet Singh made a statement that in view of the compromise between the parties, he wants to withdraw his appeal. Consequently, on his statement, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It has also come on record that in pursuance of the execution of the said decree, the decree holder got possession of the decree. It has been stated that his objections have been dismissed. The petitioner then filed Civil Suit No. 419/16.9.2006 seeking declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2002, which has been affirmed in appeal, is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser. After filing of the said suit, on 16.10.2006 the petitioner filed the instant application before the Additional District Judge for setting aside the order dated 5.4.2006 and sought permission to be impleaded as appellant for decision of the appeal on merits. The said application has been dismissed by the first Appellate Court on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to get-the said order set aside as he was neither a party in the civil suit nor a party in the appeal. It has been held that Karamjeet Singh, who was defendant No. 3 and who filed the appeal, made the statement to withdraw the appeal and on his statement, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It has also been held that when the appeal was filed by Karamjeet Singh in the year 2002, he had already sold the land, therefore, it cannot be said that the said appeal was filed and withdrawn by Karamjeet Singh for taking any undue benefit.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 2.1.2004 from Rohtash and Smt. Angri during the pendency of the appeal, whose names were mentioned in the revenue record, therefore, he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. Therefore, the first Appellate Court should have set aside the order dated 5.4.2006 whereby the appeal filed by Karamjeet Singh was dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner should have been permitted to contest the said appeal on merits. Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the first Appellate Court has also erred in law while holding that the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the said order is not within limitation. He also submitted that he has also filed an application for condonation of delay for setting aside the said order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first Appellate Court is illegal, wrong and liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to become an appellant in the appeal filed by Karamjeet Singh and also entitled to pursue the same on merits.
5. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the instant revision petition. It is well settled, as held by the Supreme Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb , that a transferee pendente lite without leave of the court cannot, as of right, seek impleadment as a party in the suit or appeal. But when an application for joinder based on transfer pendente lite is made, the transferee should ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interest. However, the purchase made by the petitioner is hit by the doctrine of lis pendence by operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper party to the suit or appeal. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a purchaser lis pendence without leave of the court. He has purchased the suit land from Rohtas and Smt. Anguri during the pendency of the appeal. Even the vendors of the petitioner, i.e. Rohtash and Smt. Anguri had also purchased the suit land during the pendency of the suit without leave of the Court. Undisputedly, in the present case, at no point of time either the vendors of the petitioner or the petitioner moved any application for impleading them as party during the pendency of the suit or appeal under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. They themselves had taken risk by not making any application for getting themselves impleaded when the suit or appeal was pending. Since the petitioner is a purchaser lis pendence without leave of the court, therefore, it cannot be pleaded by him that he is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property. After the passing of the decree and dismissal of the appeal as well as execution of the decree and delivery of possession of the suit land to the decree holder, the petitioner has no right to become a party in the suit on the ground that he has purchased the suit land during the pendency of the suit or appeal and that too without leave of the court. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner was having no locus standi to file an application dated 16.10.2006 for setting aside the order dated 5.4.2006 and to become a party in the appeal because by that time, not only the appeal was dismissed, but even the decree was executed and the decree holder was also given possession. In the instant case, not only the objections filed by the petitioner in execution of the decree have been dismissed but the petitioner has also filed a civil suit challenging the said judgment and decree being null and void and not binding on his rights. The said suit is still pending. Keeping in view all these facts, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the first Appellate Court. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.