Lokeshwar Prasad, J. ( 1 ) THE above mentioned two petitions, filed under Article227 of the Constitution, are directed against the two orders both dated the 2 2/02/1996, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Delhi in Case No. 150/95-CA entitled Shri Bed Ram v. Wintex Imports and Exports (P) Ltd. and Othersand case No. 149/95-CA entitled Shri Bed Ram v. Mis. Castle Builders (P) Ltd. andothers whereby the learned Financial Commissioner dismissed the applications ofthe petitioners, filed by them in the above mentioned appeals under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred toas the CPC ) for being impleaded as a party in the abovesaid proceedings pendingbefore the learned Financial Commissioner. ( 2 ) SINCE the abovementioned two petitions, though filed by two differentpetitioners separately, raise common question for consideration, the same, with theconsent of the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard together and are beingdisposed of by this common order. The facts relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned petitions. are also common and lie in a narrow compass. In both the abovementioned petitions the petitioners have purchased separate pieces of land, formingpart of Khasra No. 715/1, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kilokheri, Tehsilmehrauli by means of a registered sale deed, registered in the office of the sub Registrar Delhi on 23. 6. 1995 for a consideration of Rs l,95,000. 00 each. It is asserted that both the petitioners are in possession of the property purchased by them videabove mentioned registered sale deeds. Both of them applied for mutation and theproperty purchased by them stands mutated in their favour in the revenue records. Shri Bed Ram (respondent No. 2) preferred an appeal in both the cases challengingthe mutation. It is alleged that the petitioners in the month of December, 1995 cameto know that a case was pending before the learned Financial Commissionerpertaining to the piece of land purchased by them and consequently both thepetitioners filed separate applications in the proceedings pending before the learnedfinancial Commissioner under Order I Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment as aparty in those proceedings. The learned Financial Commissioner vide impugnedorder has dismissed the applications of the petitioners, filed by them under Order1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for impleadment. Feeling aggrieved thepetitioners have filed the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitutionbefore this Court. The learned Financial Commissioner vide impugnedorder has dismissed the applications of the petitioners, filed by them under Order1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for impleadment. Feeling aggrieved thepetitioners have filed the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitutionbefore this Court. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have alsocarefully gone through the documents/material on record. The learned Counsel forthe petitioners has submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner, in the factsand circumstances of the case, was not justified in dismissing the applications of thepetitioners because the petitioners, being the owners in possession of the lands inquestion are not only the interested parties but are likely to be affected by an orderthat may be passed by the learned Financial Commissioner in the proceedingspending before him. It was submitted by him that the orders, impugned in thepresent proceedings, deserve to be quashed and the applications filed by thepetitioners before the learned Financial Commissioner under Order I Rule 10 readwith Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for impleadment deserve to be allowed with costs. On theother hand the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 (who is the only contestingrespondent in the present proceedings) submitted that the present petitions arenothing but an abuse of the process of law because of the fact that a transfer made during the pendency of a proceeding is governed by the doctrine of lis pendeaceand if during the pendency of a litigation any person purchases the interest of a partyto the litigation such a person cannot seek impleadment in the proceedings because he is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the proceedings. ( 4 ) AS per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, though theplaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendence transferee a party yet a transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendantis vitally interested in the litigation and the Court has discretion in the matter, whichmust be exercised judicially, to allow such a transferee pendente lite to join as a partyso as to enable him to protect his interest property. This is all the more necessarybecause the defendant, having no more interest in the property, may not properlydefend the case or may collude with the plaintiff. The Supreme Court in case Khemchand Shankar Choudhary and Anr. This is all the more necessarybecause the defendant, having no more interest in the property, may not properlydefend the case or may collude with the plaintiff. The Supreme Court in case Khemchand Shankar Choudhary and Anr. v. Vishnu Hari Patil and Others, (AIR 1983 SC124) has held - "section 52"of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transfereependente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject-matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as thatinterest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is arepresentative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Civil P. C. clearly recognises the right of a transfereeto be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any orderis made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer bydefault on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies tobe impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded andheard. He can also prefer an appeal against an order made in the saidproceedings but with the leave of the Appellate Court where he is not alreadybrought on record. The position of a person on whom any interest haddevolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of any suit or aproceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a partywho dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an official receiverwho takes over the assets of such a party on his insolvency. An heir or a legateeor an official receiver or a transferee can participate in the execution proceedings even though their names may not have been shown in the decree,preliminary or final. If they apply to the Court to be impleaded as parties theycannot be turned out. " ( 5 ) A Division Bench of this Court in case Gurmauj Saran Baluja v. Mrs. If they apply to the Court to be impleaded as parties theycannot be turned out. " ( 5 ) A Division Bench of this Court in case Gurmauj Saran Baluja v. Mrs. Joycec Saleem and Others (AIR 1990 Delhi 13=38 (1989) DLT 114 (DB) has held - "a transferee pendente lite of the property in suit may not be a necessary partyas he would be bound by the decree passed in the suit on account of the doctrineof lis pendence as contained in Sec. 52 of the T. P. Act. Provisions of Sec. 52 areapplicable in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovableproperty, but in spite of the fact that in such a suit a plaintiff is protected by lispendence the Court does at tinges protect him further by an injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the property during the pendency of thesuit, particularly where the Court prima facie finds that a valid contract of saleexists. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if hisinterest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. " ( 6 ) THE above decisions of the Supreme Court and that of the Division Bench ofthis Court, as a matter of fact, finally clinch the issue in favour of the petitioners. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioners have not onlypurchased the pieces of lands in question by means of a registered in the sale deed,registered office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi but they are also in possession of thelands in question and the property stands mutated in their favour in the revenuerecords, it cannot be stated that their interest in the subject matter of the appeals,pending before the learned Financial Commissioner, is not substantial and justperipheral. They may not be a necessary party but decidedly they can be added asa proper party in those proceedings. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, the petitions (CM (M) 288/96 and CM (M)222/96 ) are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and it is directed that thepetitioners be impleaded as a party in the abovesaid proceedings pending before thelearned Financial Commissioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, theparties are left to bear their own costs. The impugned orders are set aside and it is directed that thepetitioners be impleaded as a party in the abovesaid proceedings pending before thelearned Financial Commissioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, theparties are left to bear their own costs. ( 8 ) NOTHING stated hereinabove shall amount to expression of any opinion on themerits of the case (s) pending before the learned Financial Commissioner.