M. R. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE, Mr. Udayan P. Vyas, learned advocate waives the service of notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) AT the request of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. ( 3 ) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners - original newly added third party have prayed for appropriate writ; order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 6/4/2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, surat below application Ex. 40 in Special civil Suit No. 236 of 2005 by which the learned trial Court has allo333wed the sold application Ex. 40 submitted by the original plaintiff to implead the petitioners as defendants. ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 herein -original plaintiff has instituted Special Civil suit No. 236 of 2005 in the Court of learned civil Judge (SD), Surat for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 29/3/1999 with respect to the suit land and also for declaration and permanent injunction. That in the said suit, the original plaintiff submitted application Ex. 5 restraining the original land owners from transferring and/or alienating the suit property, however, the said application Ex. 5 came to be rejected by the learned trial court vide order dtd. 27/7/2006. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court below application Ex. 5 the respondent No. 1 herein- original plaintiff preferred Appeal From order No. 2238 of 2006 before this Court, however, during the pendency and final disposal of the aforesaid Appeal From order, the suit land in question came to be transferred in favour of the petitioners herein by registered sale deed dtd. 27/3/2006. It is to be noted that as such the said transfer was even prior to the disposal of the application Ex. 5. However, the original land owners did not disclose with respect to the transfer of the suit land in question in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff made a statement that in view of the transaction dtd. 27/3/2006 in favour of the petitioners herein, Appeal From Order has become infructuous. However, the original land owners did not disclose with respect to the transfer of the suit land in question in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above, the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff made a statement that in view of the transaction dtd. 27/3/2006 in favour of the petitioners herein, Appeal From Order has become infructuous. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein original plaintiff also submitted before this Court that the original plaintiff would like to file appropriate application before the learned trial Court seeking to bring subsequent purchasers on record and for seeking injunction against them. Without expressing any opinion on such transfer, the learned single Judge of this Court vide order dtd. 15/9/2008 disposed of the Appeal From order No. 238 of 2006 as having become infructuous in view of the changed circumstances. That thereafter, the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff submitted application Ex. 40 to implead the petitioners as party defendants by submitting that the properties in question has been transferred during the pendency of the application Ex. 5 and that though statement was made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original owners that he will not create third party interest, still, the suit property has been transferred and sold. Therefore, it was requested to permit the original plaintiff to amend the suit by impleading the petitioners herein as defendant Nos. 8 to 11. That the learned trial Court by the impugned order dtd. 6/4/2009 allowed the said application permitting the original plaintiff implead the petitioners herein as party defendant Nos. 8 to 11 in view of the changed circumstances and the transfer during the pendency of the suit as well as Appeal From Order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court below application Ex. 40 permitting the original plaintiff to implead the petitioners herein as party defendant Nos. 8 to 11, the petitioners herein - newly added third party - subsequent purchasers have preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) MR. C. J. Vin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that as the original suit has been filed against the original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. ( 5 ) MR. C. J. Vin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that as the original suit has been filed against the original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 29/3/1999 and that the petitioners are not party to the said agreement to sell and therefore, in a suit for specific performance of the contract / agreement bo sell to which the petitioners are not parties, the petitioners cannot be joined as defendants. It is submitted that as such except joining the present petitioners as party defendants, no relief is claimed against them. It is submitted that as such the original plaintiff is required to file a separate suit. It is submitted that as such for the relief claimed in the suit, the present petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings and therefore, the learned trial court ought not to have allowed application ex. 40 by permitting the original plaintiff to implead the petitioners as party defendants. ( 6 ) MR. Vin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners - subsequent purchasers has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : (i) AIR 2002 S. C. 804 (Ratan Lal Jain and Ann v. Uma Shankar Vyas and Ors ). (ii) AIR 2005 S. C. 2209 Amit Kumar shaw and Ann v. Farida Khatoon and Anr.) and (iii) AIR 2008 S. C. 2134 (Bharat karsondas Thakkar v. M/s. Kiran construction Co. and Ors. ). By making the above submisions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is requested to allow present Special Civil application, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed below application Ex. 40. ( 7 ) THE petition is opposed by mr. Udayan P. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff. It is submitted that the suit properties in question has been sold/transferred in favour of the petitioners by the original land owners - original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 during the pendency of the suit and Exh. 5 and even during the pendency of the Appeal from Order only with a view to make the suit infructuous and therefore, in view of the changed circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly allowed the application ex. 40 permitting the plaintiff to implead the petitioners herein as party defendants. 5 and even during the pendency of the Appeal from Order only with a view to make the suit infructuous and therefore, in view of the changed circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly allowed the application ex. 40 permitting the plaintiff to implead the petitioners herein as party defendants. It is submitted that only after the petitioners are joined as defendants, the plaintiff can submit appropriate application for amending the plaint and pray to quash and set aside the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that no party can be permitted to make the proceedings infructuous. ( 8 ) MR. Vyas, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his prayer to dismiss the present Special civil Application :- (i) AIR 2004 S. C. 173 (Bibi Zubaida khatoon v. Nabi Hasan Saheb and Anr. ). (ii) AIR 2005 S. C. 2209 (Amit Kumar shaw and Ann v. Farida Khatoon and Anr.)and (iii) AIR 2005 S. C. 2813 (Kasturi v. (Iyamperumal and Ors.)By making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions it is requested to dismiss the present Special civil Application. ( 9 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. ( 10 ) AT the outset, it is required to be noted and it is an admitted position that the transfer of the suit land by way of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners herein by original defendant nos. 2 to 4 is during the pendency of the suit and even Exh. 5 and the Appeal From order preferred by the original plaintiff against the order passed below application ex. 5. The original suit is for specific performance of the agreement to sale dtd. 29/3/1999 and therefore, when the transfer/sale is during the pendency of the suit; principle of 1 (s pendence would be otherwise applicable and any transaction during the pendency of the suit is always subject to ultimate outcome of the suit. Therefore, in view of the above, when the learned trial Court has allowed the application Ex. 5 submitted by the original plaintiff permitting the plaintiff to implead the petitioners herein as defendant Nos. Therefore, in view of the above, when the learned trial Court has allowed the application Ex. 5 submitted by the original plaintiff permitting the plaintiff to implead the petitioners herein as defendant Nos. 8 to 11 it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error and/or the said order is in any way illegal and/or the learned trial Court has exceeded in exercising the jurisdiction. ( 11 ) NOW, so far as the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of raton Lal Jain and another (supra) is concerned, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case before the Hon'ble supreme Court an eviction decree was passed and decree was only against the lessee and the decree was sought to be executed against the sub tenant who was not found to be trespasser and to that the hon'ble Supreme Court held that such sub-tenant cannot be said to be bound by the eviction decree and cannot be physically evicted. ( 12 ) SO far as the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar shaw and another (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, the same would not be of any assistance to the petitioners. On the contrary the same would be assisting the original plaintiff. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has also relied upon the said decision. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision a transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation. ( 13 ) NOW, so far as the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of bharat Karsondas Thakkar (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, considering the same, the said decision also would be of no assistance to the petitioners. ( 14 ) THE controversy in question is as such covered by the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Kasturi (supra ). ( 14 ) THE controversy in question is as such covered by the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Kasturi (supra ). In the said decision the Hon'ble supreme Court has held that subsequent purchaser is a necessary party as he would be the affected, if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. In the present case, the petitioners are not claiming adversely to the claim of the original land owners - defendant Nos. 2 to 4. They have derived their right by registered sale deed through original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of kasturi (supra), the petitioners are necessary party. ( 15 ) IN view of the above facts scenario when the present petitioners have purchased the property in question during the pendency of the suit and when the application was given by the original plaintiff to implead the petitioners as party defendants and such an application is allowed and the petitioners herein are joined as defendants, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no jurisdictional error much less error of law committed by the learned trial Court in allowing the application Ex. 40. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.