JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 20.10.2011 (Annex.-8) passed in Civil Suit No.112/2008, whereby, application filed by respondents No.2 to 4 under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. was allowed and they were impleaded as party in the above civil suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit for permanent injunction was filed against the Trust not to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff from the premises in question and further it was prayed that he may not cause any damage to the property in which the petitioner-plaintiff any person whatsoever; but, by doing such an act the respondent Trust committed gross contempt and, so also, the trial Court instead of protecting its own order allowed the application filed by the applicant-respondents No.2 to 4 solely on the ground that they purchased the property in the said khasra from the Urban Improvement Trust. It is, therefore, prayed that the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4895/2009, decided on 15.05.2009, in which, similar controversy was involved and this Court observed that during the pendency of the suit or proceedings the property cannot be alienated without the permission of the Court, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and order impugned may be quashed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no quarrel with regard to the principle of lis pendency. In the instant case, the suit was filed on the basis of agreement to sale by the petitioner and with the contention that he has deposited the amount for conversion of the land; but, admittedly till filing suit there is in possession. In the suit, after filing written-statement, the application filed for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. was allowed on 24.08.2008. Thereafter, an application was moved by respondents No.2 to 4 for impleading them as party in the suit on the ground that they purchased one shop in auction from the Urban Improvement Trust in khasra No.263 and 264 situated in Shaheed Jems Thomas Housing Scheme measuring 450 sq. ft. The application filed by the applicant-respondents has been allowed illegally as per learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. ft. The application filed by the applicant-respondents has been allowed illegally as per learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The main ground of challenge to the order is that in the trial Court contempt petition is pending against the Trust for non-compliance of the order passed by the trial Court for the reason that during the pendency of the litigation the applicants were allotted shop which is in utter breach of the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the petitioner's counsel, the principle of lis pendency is applicable upon the proceedings pending before the trial Court and, during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court the respondent Trust should not and could not allot any shop towas no title in favour of the petitioner and he was claiming his right solely on the basis of possession. The following prayer was made by the petitioner in the suit : " fygktk nkok is'k djds fuonsu gS fd nkok cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknh bl izdkj ls fMxzh Qjek;k tkos fd okn ds iSjk la[;k 3 esa of.kZr tk;nkn ls izfroknh oknh dh tk;nkn ls csn[ky ugha djs uk gh fcuk vokIrh o eqvkotk fn;s csn[ky djs uk gh rksM+QM djs uk gh fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ ,slk Qsy ;k rdZ Qsy djs ftlls oknh ds fgrksa ij dqBkjk?kkr mRiUu gksrk gksA [kpkZ eqdnek fnyk;k tkosA vU; dksbZ nknjlh tks djhus bUlkQ eqfQn oknh dks vrk QjekbZ tkosA " 6. Upon perusal of the above prayer made in the suit, it is abundantly clear that no prayer was made by the petitioner against the Urban Improvement Trust for granting licence or regularisation of the land whereas, in the reply filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, it was specifically mentioned that as per the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan in the month of June 1996, 22 villages of the adjoining area of Bikaner city were declared urban land, therefore, the Urban Improvement Trust is having jurisdiction to issue patta as per the scheme framed by the Trust. Admittedly, the applicants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. on the basis of the patta issued in their favour; meaning thereby, the proceedings undertaken by the UIT for issuing patta in favour of the applicant-respondents cannot be termed to be in violation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act because in the suit there was no prayer of the petitioner for granting any title in his favour or regularisation of the land on the basis of the so called agreement made in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner by one Luna s/o Mana who was holding the agriculture land in khasra No.690/155 in village Kishmi Desar. In this view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that respondents No.2 to 4 are affected parties in the suit. Therefore, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******