Judgment :- This Revision Petition is directed against the Order of Subordinate court, Dharapuram, made in I.A.No.183 of 2001 in A.S.No.4 of 2001, dated 4. 2002 dismissing the petition filed for impleading the petitioners as appellants. 2. Relevant facts are as follows:- Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No. 296 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam for declaration that they have a right in the four feet common pathway and for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from obstructing the Plaintiffs from using the common pathway. The Plaintiffs also prayed for relief of Mandatory Injunction and for removal of the roof which the Defendant is alleged to have put up across the common pathway. After full trial, the learned District Munsif, Kangeyam dismissed the plaintiffs case holding that the Plaintiffs have not proved their entitlement to use the common pathway and held that the pathway is not a common pathway. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the Plaintiffs have filed A.S.No.4 of 2001. After the dismissal of the suit, the Revision Petitioners, who are brothers of the Plaintiffs, have purchased the property from the plaintiffs under Registered Sale Deeds dated 23. 2001. Stating that the original Plaintiffs in O.S.No.296 of 1998 having sold the properties to the Petitioners may not be interested in vigorously prosecuting the appeal, the Revision Petitioners filed I.A.No.183 of 2001 to implead themselves as parties/Appellants in A.S.No.4 of 2001. 4. Third Respondent/Defendant resisted the application contending that petitioners have accepted the sale deeds with full knowledge of dismissal of the Suit and that the sale Deeds in their favour is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the petition is not maintainable under Or. I, R.10 (2) of C.P.C. 5. The Appellate court dismissed the application finding that the petitioners purchased the property having knowledge of the pending litigation. The lower Court pointed out that the counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the newly impleaded parties are one and the same and hence, the apprehension of the petitioners that the Plaintiffs may not seriously contest the appeal is unfounded. 6. Assailing the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners, having purchased the properties for valuable consideration, would suffer irreparable loss if they are not added as parties to the appeal. 6. Assailing the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners, having purchased the properties for valuable consideration, would suffer irreparable loss if they are not added as parties to the appeal. It was further submitted that the petitioners are necessary and proper parties to be impleaded and the presence of the Petitioners is very much necessary in order to enable the Appellate Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. 7. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the documents are hit by lis pendens and what ever be the result of the appeal would be binding upon the petitioners and while so, the petitioners cannot seek to implead themselves as appellants. 8. The petitioners have purchased the property on 23. 2001 under two registered Sale Deeds. Admittedly, the sale Deeds are after the dismissal of the suit. The dispute in the suit is relating to East-West common pathway to reach the suit well. In the suit, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendant has attempted to block the common pathway by opening the Tea Stall to which, the Plaintiffs have objected. In the Suit, the Plaintiffs claimed right of declaration to use the four feet common pathway and for Permanent Injunction and also for Mandatory Injunction for removal of the roof which the Defendant is alleged to have put up across the common path way. The Suit pathway is included in the sale Deeds in favour of the Petitioners. 9. The right of the Plaintiffs to common pathway is directly and specifically in question in the suit in O.S.No. 296 of 1998. The Doctrine of lispendens imposes a prohibition of transfer or otherwise dealing of any property during the pendency of the Suit provided the conditions laid down in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act are satisfied. The common path way which is the subject matter of the suit has been conveyed along with other properties. No doubt, the Petitioners purchased the property with full knowledge of lis. Where the original Plaintiff transfers the Suit Property during the pendency of the proceedings in favour of the Transferee, the later is entitled to be brought on record and continue the suit. No doubt, the Petitioners purchased the property with full knowledge of lis. Where the original Plaintiff transfers the Suit Property during the pendency of the proceedings in favour of the Transferee, the later is entitled to be brought on record and continue the suit. Though the Petitioners are Transferees pendente lite, they are entitled to be made as parties/appellants to enable them to conduct appeal proceedings to protect their interest. 10. The discretion to implead or not to implead the parties, who applied to continue the Suit/Appeal, must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. A Transferee pendente lite is entitled to conduct all the proceedings from the date they are brought on record. But, the transferee is bound by all orders passed upto that date and cannot raise points not open to his transferor. When the Transferee is allowed to prosecute the Suit / Appeal, the Transferee cannot claim any better right than that of the Transferor. 11. In the decision reported in Amit Kumar Shaw ..Vs.. Farida Khatoon (A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2209), an Application for substitution was filed by the Appellants in the Second Appeals. The High Court rejected the Appellants Application for their substitution treating the same as Additional Parties. Holding that the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the Appellants had made the Application for addition of parties, whereas the Application under consideration was substitution as the Owner had sold the suit property to the Appellants and that the Application ought to have been allowed under O.22 R.10 C.P.C, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "...15. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is an expression of the principle "pending a litigation nothing new should be introduced". It provides that pendente lite, neither party to the litigation, in which any right to immovable property is in question, can alienate or otherwise deal with such property so as to affect his appointment. This Section is based on equity and good conscience and is intended to protect the parties to litigation against alienations by their opponent during the pendency of the Suit. In order to constitute a lis pendens, the following elements must be present: .(1) There must be a suit or proceeding pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction. .(2) The Suit or proceeding must not be collusive. In order to constitute a lis pendens, the following elements must be present: .(1) There must be a suit or proceeding pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction. .(2) The Suit or proceeding must not be collusive. .(3) The litigation must be one in which right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question. .(4) There must be a transfer of or otherwise dealing with the property in dispute by any party to the litigation. .(5) Such transfer must affect the rights of the other party that may ultimately accrue under the terms of the decree or order. 16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further, pending the Suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the Suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But, the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant, the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the Plaintiff. Hence, though the Plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party; under Order XXII Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. 17. In the instant case, the Applications for substitution were filed by the respective appellants in the Second Appeals which are still pending on the file of the High Court though it was filed in the year 1993. 17. In the instant case, the Applications for substitution were filed by the respective appellants in the Second Appeals which are still pending on the file of the High Court though it was filed in the year 1993. The appellants have properly, sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching the Court. We see bona fide in their explanation in not coming to the Court at the earliest point of time. Therefore, the appellants who are transferees pendente lite should be made as parties to the pending second appeals as prayed for by them. In our opinion, the High Court has committed serious error in not ordering the Applications for substitution filed by the Appellants. In our view, the presence of the Appellants are absolutely necessary in order to decide the appeals on merits. Since the High Court has committed error by rejecting the appellants applications for substitution treating the same as additional parties and thereby rendering the appellants non suited. We have no hesitation in setting aside the said orders and permit the appellants to come on record by way of substitution as prayed for. The High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the appellants had made the application for addition of party whereas the Application under consideration was for substitution as the owner had sold the suit property to the Appellants and had no interest in the pending litigation. 18. In our opinion, the presence of the Appellants was absolutely necessary since the Appellants are the only persons who has got subsisting right, title and interest in the suit. The Appellants are at liberty to contest the matter on merits....." 12. The above decision squarely applies to the case in hand. The presence of the Petitioners as Appellants is necessary. The Petitioners, who are the Transferee pendente lite are vitally interested in the litigation. Under O.22 R.10 C.P.C, the Petitioners are entitled to be impleaded as parties and the Impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Impugned Order dated 01.04.2002 of the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram in I.A.No.183 of 2001 in A.S.No.4 of 2001 is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Appellate Court is directed to implead the Petitioners as Appellants and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.