1. Shri Rajeshwar Sharma Son of Banarasi Lal Sharma Resident of Patel-Nagar, Jammu through the medium of application in hand, seeks his impleadment as party defendant in the civil original suit titled Wazir Baij Nath v. Wazir Mansa Ram and others (COS No. 8/1972), on the grounds urged in the application. 2. The applicant's case is that Shri Simla Devi widow of Wazir Tej Ram one of the defendants in the suit, vide Sale Deed executed on 10.02.1981 sold a plot of land measuring 2 Kanals comprising of Khasra No. 4 situated at Nowabad, Tehsil, Jammu out of the suit land to Shri Banarasi Lal Sharma — father of the applicant and that Shri Banarasi Lal Sharma vide Gift Deed dated 5th December, 1993 registered on 16th December 1993 transferred the aforesaid plot to the applicant. The applicant claims to be in possession of the aforesaid land as owner thereof and therefore entitled to be impleaded as party defendant to the suit. It is pleaded, that the applicant is a necessary party to suit on account of events subsequent to the date the suit was filed, because of transfer of interests in the suit property by one of the defendants the applicant in terms of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC deserves to be impleaded as party defendant. 3. The application is opposed inter alia on the grounds that the Sale Deed executed by Smt. Bimla Devi in favour of Banarasi Lal Sharma is void and of no legal consequence in as much as the permission granted by the Court in favour of Bimla Devi permitting her to execute Sale Deed, related to land situated at village Kundoria and not Nowabad, Jammu. It is further pleaded, that the possession of the subject matter of the Sale Deed was at no point of time handed over actually or constructively to the father of the applicant and that the applicant is not in possession of the said plot. It is further pleaded that Shri Bimla Devi was not the only legal heir of the deceased Tej Ram and therefore not competent to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Banarasi Lal Sharma. The applicant, according to the non-applicants is a stranger to the suit and not entitled to be arrayed as party either under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC or Order 22 Rule 10 of the Court. The applicant, according to the non-applicants is a stranger to the suit and not entitled to be arrayed as party either under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC or Order 22 Rule 10 of the Court. It is disputed that the applicant is a proper and necessary party in the suit. The non-applicants resist the application, also on the ground that the application is belated and not entertainable after long, inordinate and inexplicable delay of a little more than two decades. The applicant in his rejoinder filed on 12.08.2009, has disputed the non-applicant's claim that the Sale Deed executed on 10.02.1981, by Bimla Devi in favour of Banarasi Lal Sharma related to plot of land other than one for which permission was granted by the High Court or that the Sale Deed for the said reason are void, without any rights flowing there from in favour of the applicants father. The said Deed is claimed to have been executed by Smt. Bimla Devi in presence of her daughter and the local Patwari, and therefore free from any coercion or undue influence. The High Court while granting permission to Smt. Bimal Devi vide its order dated 20th March, 1974 to sell land measuring 09 Kanals 12 Marias is said to have granted the permission subject to the condition that the transaction would be subject to final disposal of the suit. The stand taken by Smt. Bimla Devi in her objections is stated to be belied by her stand viz-a-viz mutation attested in favour of Shri Banarasi Lal Sharma, that according to the applicant was never questioned or challenged by Smt. Bimla Devi. 4. I have gone through the application, objections and rejoinder filed by the applicant in reply to the objections as also the main file. I have heard Counsel for the parties. 5. Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, embodies the principle of Lis pendens. It lays down that in a suit or proceedings wherein any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property can not be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings so as to effect the rights of other party thereto, under any decree or order which may be made therein, excep t under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. The principle of Lis pendens is in accordance with equity and good conscience as it has its edifice or foundation on an equitable and just principle that it would be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if the subject matter of the suit is permitted to be transferred. In terms of the principle of Lis pendens a transferee pendit lite is bound by the decree as if he was a party to the suit. In terms of the principle a litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during pendency of the litigation. 6. It is well settled law that a suit may proceed without impleadment of a person on whom an interest in the subject matter of the suit has devolved and that such person would be bound by the decree passed in the suit. The impleadment of a stranger to a suit on the ground that he acquired an interest in the subject matter of the suit would enlarge the scope of the suit and force the plaintiff to cut sword with a stranger to the suit. In a case where part of the suit property is transferred without information to the transferee that the title of the person making the transfer is not free from doubt and subject to outcome of the suit, the application of the transferee for impleadment may be accorded consideration, as a transferor or defendant in the suit may not defend the suit in all earnest and with all seriousness. However, where the transferee of a part of suit property was aware of pendency of the suit at the time of the transfer or sale and knew that whatever rights accrue to him under the Sale Deed or other document are subject to the outcome of the suit, such transferee is not entitled to be impleaded as party defendant and instead has to wait for the outcome of the suit and to be bound by the decree passed in the suit. In other words equities may come into play in favour of a transferee where there is intentional concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the defendant while negotiating the sale of a part of the suit property to the transferee. In other words equities may come into play in favour of a transferee where there is intentional concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the defendant while negotiating the sale of a part of the suit property to the transferee. It follows that where doctrine of Lis Pendens is applicable a transferee pendit lite, is not to be impleaded as a party by the Court as that would not only enlarge the principle of dominuslitis. It needs no emphasis that the plaintiff is master of his case, has every right to choose his adversaries and cannot be forced to litigate with a stranger to the suit only because one of the defendants has alienated or otherwise transferred a part of the subject matter of the suit. The applicant transferee in such case would be at liberty to bring a separate action against the defendant who transferred interests/right in the suit property. So viewed the applicant is not entitled to be imp leaded as party defendant. 7. There is one more hiccup that stands in the way of applicant to get imp leaded as party defendant to the suit. The applicant, it needs to be pointed out, does not directly claim an interest in the suit property from the defendant Smt. Simla Devi. The applicant's case is that the part of the suit property was teansferred by Smt. Bimla Devi with permission of the court to applicant's father Shri Banarasi Lal Sharma, sometime after 1974, to though formal Sale Deed was executed on 10.02.1981, and that the transferee executed a Gift Deed in respect of the said part of property in favour of the applicant. Sh. Banarasi Lal Sharma did not find it necessary to lay a motion for his impleadment as party/defendant to the suit, for a little less than two decades after he acquired proprietary rights in the transferred land. The applicant therefore cannot claim a right to be impleaded, when the person under whom he claims such right, did not find it necessary to seek impleadment. In any case the application is belated and does not merit consideration on that count as well, more so when the Vendee did not exercise the right now sought to be exercised by the donee of the property. 8. For the reasons discussed above the application is dismissed.