HARIKISHAN Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the dismissal of the application filed by the appellants under Order 22. Rule 10, C. P. C. seeking permission of the Court to permit them to come on record as additional defendants in o. S. No. 88/98 pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gulburga.

(2.) THE case of the appellants are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed O. S. No. 88/88 against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction contending that there was an oral agreement of sale of the portion of the property bearing No. 1-1295 at Gullabawadi, aiwan-E-Shahi Road, Gulburga for an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- and how he has to pay only Rs. 1000/- as consideration. Since the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 refused to execute the sale deed he filed the said suit and also obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from alienating the suit property in favour of third parties. That before the service of summons and the order of temporary injunction, the appellant No. 1 has taken lease for 100 years over plot measuring 52 ft. 3 inches towards east and 52 ft. 3 inches towards west, 87 ft. towards north and 77 ft. towards south by a registered lease deed dated 30-5-1998 which is part and parcel of house bearing No. 1-1295 of Lahoti Estate. That appellant No. 2 purchased a plot measuring 81. 25 ft. x 52. 25 ft. under a registered sale deed dated 30-5-1998 which is also part of the suit property. That appellant No. 3 purchased a portion of house no. 1295/b and open space of 82 ft. x 58 ft. under the registered sale deed from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. They came to know about the pendency of the present suit, immediately they filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10, c. P. C. seeking permission of the trial court to permit them to come on record as defendant Nos. 3 to 6. which came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of both the parties and perused the records. The question that arises for consideration is "whether the application to come on record by subsequent transferee be rejected and whether the subsequent purchaser be non-suited altogether?