JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Satnam Singh son of Sajjan Singh petitioner-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit and sought a decree for possession, by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.3.2005, with respect to the agricultural land in dispute and in the alternative, a decree for recovery of double of the amount of earnest money, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Shivraj Singh son of Prem Singh (since deceased), being represented by his LRs Jasvir Kaur and others respondent defendants (for short “the defendants”) from alienating the suit land in any manner. 2. During the course of pendency of the suit, plaintiff moved a composite application (Annexure P1) for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the parties, inter-alia pleading that the LRs of deceased-defendant have transferred the part of the property in dispute in favour of Gurpreet Singh, Dara Singh, Mandeep Singh and Sukhdeep Singh sons of Jasdev Singh, by virtue of sale deeds, bearing Vasika Nos.1253 & 1254 dated 6.1.2010. The sale deeds/transactions were stated to be bogus, sham and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff sought to amend the suit and to implead the subsequent vendees as parties to it. 3. The defendants contested the prayer of the plaintiff and filed their reply (Annexure P2), inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the application, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. The sale deeds in favour of the contesting defendants were stated to be valid and legal. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P1), by way of impugned order dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P3). 5. The petitioner-plaintiff did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the instant revision petition. 6. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P1), by way of impugned order dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P3). 5. The petitioner-plaintiff did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the instant revision petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the subsequent vendees have purchased the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit, so, their presence is essential to decide the controversy between the parties, lacks merit. 8. As is evident from the record that as the subsequent vendees were claimed to have purchased the suit property during the course of pendency of the suit, therefore, their transactions would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. It is now well settled principle of law that subsequent vendees have no legal right to be impleaded as parties nor they can independently contest the suit of the plaintiff. They would only step into the shoes of their vendors. Reliance in this regard can be made to the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in case Dhanna Singh v. Baljinder Kaur 1998(1) PLR 706 and this Court in case Jaswinder Singh v. Sohan Singh and others 2005(1) PLR 593, wherein it was ruled that “the subsequent purchaser does not get any right to lead any evidence, as he stepped into the shoes of the first defendant, who has given up the right to lead evidence.” 9. The same view was again reiterated by this Court in RSA No.4314 of 2008 titled as “Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. Mohan Singh and others” decided on 2.8.2011. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that subsequent vendees are essential parties, “stricto sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Thus, to me, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiff in this respect. 10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has also recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure 1) filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, by way of impugned order (Annexure P3). Thus, to me, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiff in this respect. 10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has also recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure 1) filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, by way of impugned order (Annexure P3). Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to take a contrary view by this Court, than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the trial Court. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. ----------0BSK0----------