JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is the revision against the trial Courts Order dated 11-12 1979 dismissing the intervener Ashok Kumars application for being joined as a party in the pending Civil Suit No. 114 of 66 Sunnu Khan v. Basal and others. ( 2. ) IN a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, partition and possession filed by Sunnu Khan (Present non-applicant No. 1) against certain members of his family viz. Basal Khan and others (Present-non-applicants-defendants No. 2 to 5), temporary injunction had been granted against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the subject matter viz. the properties in suit. The present applicant Ashok Kumar had purchased some of the lands in suit from the defendants Kasimkhan and Subratikhan (non-applicants No. 4 and 5) during the pendency of the suit. Ashok Kumar having, thus, purchased part of the suit lands, filed the application under order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for being joined as a defendant in the suit. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff, that Ashok Kumar could not be joined the suit, inasmuch as the purchase of the property by him during the pendency of suit was hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property act. The trial Court, upholding the petition of the non-applicant No. 1 sunnu Khan and being further of the opinion that Ashok Kumars such purchase was in violation of the temporary injunction which had been granted against the defendants, rejected Ashok Kumars application under Order 22, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and hence now, the present revision. ( 3. ) THE learned counsel for the applicant Ashok Kumar has urged before me that section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not attracted at all, so as to disentitle him from being joined as a party to safeguard his own interest, consequent to his purchase of a part of suit property from some of the defendants who being the close relatives of the plaintiffs, could as well, any time, may choose to collude with the plaintiff, to the detriment of the interests of the applicant purchaser Ashok Kumar. Violation of temporary injunction is also urged to be of no effect so far as he was concerned, since the temporary injunction was net against him, but, was against the existing defendants, who alone could be proceeded against, according to law, for violation of the order of temporary injunction. In this context, it is also urged that plaintiffs own sons had equally purchased part of the suit property from the defendants Kasimkhan and Subratikhan during the pendency of the suit and despite the Order of temporary injunction, being in force, against these defendants. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant Ashok Kumar has filed before me the certified copy of the sale-deed dated 14-8-1974. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant-plaintiff has tried to repel the arguments pressed by the applicants learned counsel by contending that the trial Courts discretion in the matter of its order passed under Order 22, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code cannot be lightly interfered with except on cogent grounds which in the present case, are none. Order passed by the trial Court, being well within proper exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, without any material irregularity or illegality, is urged to be not open for interference in revision. It is also pressed before me that the applicant Ashok kumar had merely purchased the right to litigate; and as such, he did not deserve to be allowed to be joined as a necessary or proper party in the case. ( 5. ) I have considered the arguments on both sides. No doubt it is true that orders passed by the Courts below in exercise of discretion, should not be normally interfered with in revision; but, where the Court below is found to have exercised its jurisdiction with such material irregularity as to occasion either failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom said orders have been made, the revisional Court would be failing in its duty in not stepping in for interference in such orders in the ends of justice. Present is the case of such nature, where interference in revision is apparently called for. It is futile to contend that the applicant Ashok Kumar has merely purchased the right to litigate for and on behalf of the non-applicants-defendants. Present is the case of such nature, where interference in revision is apparently called for. It is futile to contend that the applicant Ashok Kumar has merely purchased the right to litigate for and on behalf of the non-applicants-defendants. The other non-applicants-defendants are already there in the case to protect their own rights in the matter of the property other than those alienated by them. Ashok Kumar is one of such purchasers who has his own right to defend with respect to the property he had purchased. ( 6. ) COMING to the next point pertaining to the doctrine of lis pendens as engrafted in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the trial Court is found to have disallowed the applicant Ashok Kumars application under order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code under this doctrine. The effect of transfer, pending litigation on the rights of the parties has been succinctly stated thus in Nagu Bai Ammal and others v. B. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593 . "the effect of section 52 is not to wipe out a sale pendente lite altogether but to subordinate it to the rights based on the decree in the suit. As between the parties to the transaction, however, it is perfectly valid and operative to vest the title of the transferor in the transferee. The words so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein make it clear that the transfer is good except to the extent under the decree or order. It is in this view that transfers pendente lite have been held to be valid and operative as between the parties thereto. Hence the contention that a transfer pendente lite must for purposes of section 52 be treated as still retaining title to the properties cannot be accepted. " Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, is not attracted in the instant case so as to disentitle the applicant Ashok Kumar from being joined as a party in the suit to protect his right, title and interest of the purchased property. " Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, is not attracted in the instant case so as to disentitle the applicant Ashok Kumar from being joined as a party in the suit to protect his right, title and interest of the purchased property. The necessity for his being joined as a party is more so for the reason that the possibility cannot be ruled out for either collusiveness or amicable settlement in the partition suit in question between the plaintiff on the one hand and his close relatives on the other, to the detriment of the interests of the purchaser Ashok Kumar. ( 7. ) EXISTENCE of temporary injunction against the present non applicants-defendants cannot also come in the way of Ashok Kumars being joined as a party in the suit. The effect of non-compliance with an injunction issued under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code is only to make the offender liable for punishment prescribed in Order 39, Rule 2 (3) Civil Procedure Code. There is a complete sale in favour of Ashok Kumar but such sale, though in contravention of an injunction Order is not a nullity as being without jurisdiction. In the like case it has been held in Kusuma Dei and others v. Malati Bewa und others, A I R 1969 Orissa 195. that a party who applies for permission to be impleaded as defendant on the ground that he has purchased the property, permission has to be granted under Order 22, Rule 10 (1) Civil Procedure code. In view of the matter, trial Courts Order disallowing Ashok Kumars application for being impleaded as a defendant does not deserve to be sustained. ( 8. ) IN the result, thus, revision is allowed; and the impugned Order dated 11-12-1979 of the trial Court is set aside and consequently purchaser Ashok kumars application for being impleaded as a defendant under Order 22, rule 10 (1) Civil Procedure Code is allowed. The trial Court to proceed accordingly after doing the needful. Parties to bear their own costs in the present case. Revision allowed.