The present appeal arises from a judgment dated 21.01.2022 by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, which dismissed the writ petition of the Appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant sought to challenge the dismissal of his impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC by the ADJ, Hindaun City. The appeal focuses on whether a transferee pendente lite with notice of pending litigation can be impleaded to protect their interests. The Supreme Court found that the High Court and ADJ erred in dismissing the Appellant's application and allowed the appeal, directing that the Appellant be impleaded as a party-defendant in the underlying suit.

1. Introduction

   • Appeal arises from the judgment dated 21.01.2022 by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan.
   • Writ petition under Article 227 was dismissed.

2. Brief Facts

   • Appellant and proforma Respondents purchased farming land from Respondent No. 21.
   • Subject Land originally belonged to Respondent Nos. 1-17 and was transferred to Respondent Nos. 18-20.
   • Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration that certain deeds are null and void.

3. Underlying Suit and Pendente Lite Purchases

   • Respondent No. 21 executed a sale deed in favor of the Appellant despite ongoing litigation.
   • Appellant filed an impleadment application, which was dismissed by the ADJ.

4. High Court's Decision

   • High Court held that the impleadment application was untenable due to the doctrine of lis pendens.

5. Submissions and Analysis

   • Appellant's Counsel: Impleadment necessary to protect interests due to possible collusion among relatives.
   • Respondents' Counsel: Appellant not bona fide purchaser; cheques bounced; no possession of the Subject Land.
   • Analysis by the Supreme Court: Doctrine of lis pendens does not render transfers void ab-initio.

6. Legal Precedents

   • Thomson Press vs. Nanak Builders: Impleadment allowed even with prior knowledge of litigation.
   • Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb: Impleadment not a right but discretionary.

7. Supreme Court's Findings

   • High Court's and ADJ's orders erroneous.
   • Transferees pendente lite with notice can be impleaded to protect interests.
   • Potential collusion between Plaintiffs and Defendants noted.
   • Appellant has a registered sale deed and interests to protect.

8. Conclusion

   • Appeal allowed.
   • Impugned Order and ADJ's order set aside.
   • Appellant to be added as a party-defendant in the underlying suit.

9. Disposition of Pending Applications

• All pending applications stand disposed of.