JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The intervenor-petitioner has filed this civil revision application challenging the order dated 8.6.2006 passed by 4th Additional Munsif, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 317/03 by which the petition of the petitioner dated 4.6.2005 filed under Order-I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding him as party defendant in the suit has been rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the original defendant resides with him and he is being looked after by the petitioner as he is issueless. Further case of the petitioner is that the original defendant had executed and registered four gift deeds in favour of the petitioner in the years 2001 and 2005 with regard to the entire property including the property in dispute in the suit and, therefore, having acquired interest in the suit property on the basis of the aforesaid registered gift deeds, this petitioner is a necessary party in the suit and should be added as defendant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari vs. Vishnu Hari Patil reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 124; AIR 1999 Supreme Court 976 and in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2209. 4. From the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, as referred to above, it is apparent that any alienation of the suit property during the pendency of the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the transferee is bound by the judgment and decree passed in the suit, even if he does not become a party to the suit. However, in case the transferee appears in the suit and files a petition under Order-I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleading him as a party in the suit on the basis of the interest acquired in the suit property or any alienation by any party to the suit during its pendency, the application has to be allowed and the transferee has to be impleaded as a party in the suit and be heard. For ready reference, the following passage from the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow: ".....Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognizes the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard. He can also prefer any appeal against an order made in the said proceedings but with the leave of the appellate court where he is not already brought on record." 5. Thus, it is apparent that when a transferee or any party in the suit has acquired right on the basis of any alienation made by any of the parties and he. applies to become a party under Order-I Rule 10 of the C.P.C, the court has no discretion but to allow the petition for impleading him as a party. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 8.6.2006 is apparently in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, and, therefore, the same is set aside. The petition of the intervenor-defendant filed under Order-I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is allowed and the court below is directed to implead him as party defendant in the suit and thereafter, to proceed in the suit in accordance with law. 7. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed with above directions and observations.