(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 21.8.2007, Annex. 5 passed by the learned District Judge. Fast Track No. 4 (MACT Cases), Jodhpur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC was rejected.
(2.) According to the facts of the case, a suit was filed by plaintiff- respondent No. 3 Smt. Rachna Gehlot against respondents (herein) Vishvanath and Hukam Singh. The said suit was filed for taking possession and compensation. In the suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. was filed by the petitioner narrating that he has purchased the property in question on 23.7.2006 and he is in possession, therefore, he is necessary party in the matter and accordingly he may be impleaded as party to the proceedings of the suit. the said application filed by the petitioner was replied by the plaintiff- respondent Smt. Rachana Gehlot and it was prayed that the suit was instituted on 15.7.2006 and property in question was purchased by the applicant on 23.7.2006; meaning thereby, during the pendency of the suit, the property in question was purchased, therefore, the alleged transfer of the property in question is barred by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the subsequent purchaser who has allegedly purchased the property after institution of the suit is not necessary party.
(3.) After filing of the reply, as aforesaid by the plaintiff-respondent, the trial Court rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC vide order dated 21.8.2007, in which, the learned trial Court has observed in para 5 of the order that admittedly the suit was instituted on 15.7.2006 and the applicant has purchased the property in question on 23.7.2006 from the respondents without any permission from the Court, therefore, on the basis of principle of lis pendent, the property was illegally transferred, therefore, while following the judgment reported in AIR 2007 SCW 1490, the learned trial Court rejected the application with cost of Rs. 200/-.