(1.) Late Hameed filed a suit, being Suit No. 817 of 1999, Hameed v. Alauddin, on 10.9.1999, for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the peaceful possession and occupation over the land in dispute. It appears that during the pendency of the suit on 4.10.1999, the sole defendant executed a registered sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of the respondent No. 2, Shubhan Ali Ansari. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2001. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed on 18.8.2004. The plaintiff filed Writ Petition No. 43408 of 2004, Smt. Asiya Begum v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Mirzapur and others, before this Court in which an interim order has been passed on 14.10.2004. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff, Hameed died on 13.2.2004. The heirs of the plaintiff were substituted. On the basis of the registered sale deed, dated 4.10.1999, the respondent No. 2, filed an application dated 10.4.2008, under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC for his impleadment as a defendant. The Trial Court rejected the impleadment application vide order dated 2.12.2010 against which Revision No. 18 of 2011 was filed, which was allowed by the order dated 13.4.2011 and Shubhan Ali Ansari has been impleaded as a defendant.
(2.) Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Vibha Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that if a sale has been made during the pendency of the suit, without permission of the Court, the subsequent purchaser cannot be made a party to the suit. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another, 2004 1 SCC 191, Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy and others, 2007 66 AllLR 304and Sunil Gupta v. Kiran Girhotra and others., 2007 59 AllIndCas 120