ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by an order dated 21.04.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 254 of 2000 by learned Sub-Judge-I, Patna, whereby application filed by the petitioner for his impleadment as party in the said suit has been rejected. 3. Certain facts are admitted. One Jagan Ram died on 19.01.1985 leaving behind his Widow Nago Devi and two sons Shiv Ram Prasad and Binay Prasad. The said Jagan Ram during his life time, had acquired a property from Indrapuri Sahkari Grih Nirman Sammittee Limited, having an area of 2148 sq. ft. Nago Devi filed the suit seeking partition of the said property vide suit No. 254 of 2000 on 09.06.2000. However, prior to filing of the suit, second son of Jagan Ram, namely, Binay Prasad by a registered sale deed dated 04.05.2000 had transferred part of the property to Birendra Kumar Singh. Shiv Ram, Binay Prasad and Birendra Kumar Singh were thus impleaded as defendants No.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit. They have been impleaded as Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 in the present application respectively. Respondent No. 4, Birendra Kumar Singh by a registered sale deed dated 23.07.2005 transferred the property purchased by him in favour of Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider. Subsequently, Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider transferred the said property to the petitioner on 16.10.2007 by a registered sale deed. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application under Order I rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment as party defendant in the suit. The Court below however, has rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 21.04.2009 on the ground that the petitioner was not at all a necessary party in the partition suit and complete adjudication of the suit would not be hampered even in the absence of the petitioner. 4. This is to be noted that in the meanwhile, Respondent No. 3 had filed his written statement on 10.11.2000 and Respondent No. 4 had filed his written statement on 13.03.2001. 4. This is to be noted that in the meanwhile, Respondent No. 3 had filed his written statement on 10.11.2000 and Respondent No. 4 had filed his written statement on 13.03.2001. This is to be clarified, at the cost of repetition, that Respondent No. 3 is vendor of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 4 is vendor of Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider, from whom the petitioner purchased the part of the suit property. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submits that the Court below wrongly rejected his application for intervention as evidently the petitioner had interest in the suit property. He submits that after transferring the property, Respondent No. 3 and 4 lost their interest in the suit and for the ends of justice, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to be impleaded as party in the suit. He further submits that his impleadment as party would not have prejudiced the case of the other parties as the petitioner would not have been taking any stand inconsistent with the stand of the original vendor i.e. Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 4 so far as share of Respondent No. 3 in the suit property was concerned. He further submits that that the disposal of suit would not have been delayed because of the impleadment of the petitioner as he was required to be impleaded just to ensure that his interest in the property purchased by him was duly protected. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, who has been substituted in place of the plaintiff Nago Devi in the Court below, contends that no permission was sought by the petitioner from the Court below at the time of purchase of the concerned property nor such permission was granted. He accordingly submits that the said transaction between Respondent No. 3 on the one hand and Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider on the other is hit by doctrine of lis pendens as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He also submits that transfer of the said property by Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider to the petitioner on 16.10.2007 is also hit by the said provision. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2006 (13) SCC 608 (Sanjay Verma Vs. He also submits that transfer of the said property by Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider to the petitioner on 16.10.2007 is also hit by the said provision. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2006 (13) SCC 608 (Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy) to contend that transfer having been made without leave of the Court, the petitioner could not claim his impleadment as party in the suit. In reply, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring or changing the physical feature of the suit property. By an order dated 20.08.2008, the application was rejected by the Court below. 7. He, therefore, submits that it cannot be said that transfer made by Respondent No. 4, Birendra Kumar, was not authorised. He submits that in view of the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the learned Court below, it was open for Respondent No. 4 to alienate the suit property and the transaction dated 30.03.2001 or 16.10.2007 cannot be said to be hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. The provision as contained in Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of impleadment of transferee pendente lite as party to a suit came to be considered recently by Supreme Court in case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors. reported in 2013 (5) SCC 411. The Supreme Court has taken note of the observations made in case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy (supra), reliance upon which has been placed by Learned counsel for the respondents. The Supreme Court after considering Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has held that transfer of suit property pendente lite is not void ab initio but remains subservient to the pending litigation. In the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors. (supra), the purchase of the property was made in spite of there being stay of alienation and even then the Supreme Court held that the transferee pendente lite would be impleaded as party to the suit so as to protect his interest. In the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors. (supra), the purchase of the property was made in spite of there being stay of alienation and even then the Supreme Court held that the transferee pendente lite would be impleaded as party to the suit so as to protect his interest. The Supreme Court in that case quoted with approval previous Supreme Court judgment in case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil reported in 1983 (1) SCC 18 to the effect that the position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during pendency of a suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of the suit or proceeding. The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 55 of the said judgment in case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors. (supra) that any such heirs, legatee or transferee could not be turned away when he applies for being added as a party to the suit. While summing up, the Supreme Court held, in the facts and circumstances of that case, that as the transferee had purchased the entire estate, he was entitled to be added as party defendant to the suit. However, as a result of his addition, Court held in that case, the appellant should raise and pursue only such defences as are available and taken by the original defendants and not other. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors. (supra), I allow this application and set aside the impugned order. 9. I have kept in my mind the fact that during the pendency of a suit, an application restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property was filed before the Court below which was rejected. I accordingly direct the Court below to allow the petitioner to be impleaded as party defendant in T.S. No. 254 of 2000. It is made clear that as a result of his addition, the Petitioner would be raising and pursuing only such defences as were available and taken by Respondent No. 4, i.e. defendant No. 3 before the Court below. 10. This application is accordingly allowed. It is made clear that as a result of his addition, the Petitioner would be raising and pursuing only such defences as were available and taken by Respondent No. 4, i.e. defendant No. 3 before the Court below. 10. This application is accordingly allowed. As the suit has remained pending now for more than a decade, this Court expects that the Court below shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. This is particularly in view of the stand taken by the petitioner before this Court that he will not be taking any plea inconsistent with one already taken by Respondent No. 4 / defendant No. 3.