JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is an application for revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhokerdan, rejecting the application of the petitioners for joining them as parties to the Darkhast proceedings. 2. One Vithoba had filed a suit for possession against respondents Nos. 2 to 9 in respect of several lands. It appears that he died during the pendency of the suit and after his death his wife Dwarkabai and his mother Gangubai respondent No. 1 were brought on record as his heirs. A decree for possession in respect of the properties in suit was passed in their favour. That decree was also affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. This Gangubai then alone filed a Darkhast being Regular Darkhast No. 5 of 1972 against respondents Nos. 2 to 9 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhokerdan, for execution of the decree for possession in respect of the suit lands. It appears that after the High Court affirmed the decree, Dwarkabai executed an agreement of sale in respect of suit lands in favour of petitioner No. 1 and also executed a registered sale deed in pursuance of this agreement. While this Darkhast was pending, the petitioners made an application (Exhibit 25) to the trial Court on 7th August, 1972 contending that they should be joined as a party to the regular Darkhast No. 5 of 1972 filed by respondent No. 1 as the representative of the decree holder Dwarkabai. This application was opposed and was taken into consideration by the learned Judge along with other applications and a common order was passed. He rejected this application of the petitioners on the ground that the said deed appears to have been executed by Dwarakabai, wife of Ranganath Sahane, while the decree holder was Dwarkabai Vithoba, and therefore, the identity of the decree-holder was not established. He also held that even if she had transferred the properties, they are transferred during the pendency of the suit and they are hit by the doctrine of lis-pendens and, therefore, rejected application. It is against this order, that the present Civil Revision Application has been filed. 3. In my opinion, this order cannot be sustained at all. He also held that even if she had transferred the properties, they are transferred during the pendency of the suit and they are hit by the doctrine of lis-pendens and, therefore, rejected application. It is against this order, that the present Civil Revision Application has been filed. 3. In my opinion, this order cannot be sustained at all. So far as the identity of Dwarkabai is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that Dwarkabai, widow of Vithoba, has re-married Rangnath Sahane and that is why she after the re-marriage has become Dwarkabai Rangnath Sahane. The learned Judge has, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the application on the ground that the identity was not established. It is open to the petitioners to establish the identity if it is challenged by the respondents that the seller was not decree-holder Dwarkabai Vithoba. 4. So far as the doctrine of lis-pendens, the learned Judges has not clearly understood the provisions of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (3) of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads : "Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court". The petitioners have alleged that they are the purchasers of the suit property and, therefore, they are the representatives of the decree-holder. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in (Satyanarayan Banerji and others v. Kalyani Prasad Singh Deo Bahadur and others)1, A.I.R. 1945 Cal. 387 and also by the decision in (Narayanrao Amritrao v. Chunnilal Sitaram)2, A.I.R. 1953 Nag. 236, where Mudholkar, J. has observed : "The sale of any property pendete lite is not void but only voidable. It if, therefore, clear that a purchaser pendente lite is deemed to be a representative in interest of the seller. In (A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 260)3, the question before their Lordships was whether a purchaser from a mortgagor of the mortgaged property pending the suit for foreclosure on the mortgagor is a representative in interest of the mortgagor. Their Lordships held that such a purchaser is a representative in interest of the mortgagor. This decision has been followed in (A.I.R. 1949 Mad. Their Lordships held that such a purchaser is a representative in interest of the mortgagor. This decision has been followed in (A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 207)4, where it was held that such a purchaser being a representative in interest of the mortgagor judgment-debtor is bound by the mortgagor decree and, therefore, a petition is execution by the mortgagor-decree-holder for possession of the property purchased by him is maintainable against him". The learned Judge was, therefore, obviously in error in rejecting the application. 5. Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, urged that the sales effected in favour of the petitioners are not valid sales and he wants to challenge them on numerous grounds. It is not possible to do so in these proceedings. For the present the petitioners only party for joining them as parties to the Darkhast proceedings and that application deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Application is allowed and the petitioners are joined as parties. The rule is made absolute. Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. -----