SHRIKRUSHNA NARAYAN TUPKARI Vs. MAHADEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the rival parties.

(2.) By means of present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 19.5.2013 passed by learned District Judge2, Akola (below Exh. 23) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 31/2013, by which the said Application (Exh.23) filed by the present petitioner, was rejected.

(3.) In support of the Writ Petition Mr.A.S.Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice to the suit property and he came to know about pendency of the Appeal against the judgment and decree for specific performance of contract that was passed by the learned trial Judge in RCS No. 388/2012 and, therefore, in order to save his interest, filed Application (Exh.23) in the pending Appeal. The lower Appellate Court rejected the Application (Exh.23) only on the ground that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and is a stranger to the litigation and in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (henceforth referred to as " the T.P. Act"), as per the doctrine of lis pendens, the decree is binding on him. As such, he cannot be allowed to participate in the proceedings in Appeal since he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. According to Mr.Mehadia, the petitioner was cheated by respondent no.2 and he would be losing his hardearned income with which he purchased the suit property, he having no knowledge about the suit or the decree that was passed, which is ultimately challenged before the lower Appellate Court. He submitted that the petitioner being a person who has been deceived, cannot be denied the entry from the doors of the Court in order that the petitioner can put up his case before the lower Appellate Court and show his bona fides and the manner in which he was deceived and also may get some relief if the Court finds accordingly. But then, according to him, closing the doors of justice to him would be doing severe injustice to him and also will give rise of multifariousness of litigation. He, therefore, prayed for allowing Application (Exh. 23).