JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1st April 2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Solapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12th March 2004 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1986 the present second appeal has been filed. 2. Admit. 3. Taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, I frame the following substantial question of law: "Question: "Whether the lower Appellate Court committed an error in law in prohibiting Defendant No. 3, the second subsequent purchaser, from prosecuting the appeal on all the points of facts and law relatable even to other Defendants merely because the Appellant was purchaser lis pendens ? Answer: Yes" 5. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted having referred to paragraph 43 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Thomson Press (I) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2013 SCC 2389 : [2013(3) ALL MR 408 (S.C.)] the lower Appellate Court was not at all justified in prohibiting the Appellant Defendant No. 3 from prosecuting his appeal on all the points of facts and law, the said court, being the fact finding court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent cited a decision in the case of Ram Awadh (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Achhaibar Dubey & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 860 : [2000(2) ALL MR 565 (S.C.)], in particular paragraph 6 and submitted that the lower Appellate Court was not wrong in doing so. 7. I quote the following portion from paragraph 16 of the lower Appellate Court judgment which reads thus; "16. In view of above mentioned law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, area of enquiry in the present appeal can be restricted to a great extent. The above mentioned observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court go to show that, appellant can not be allowed to challenge if plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, or otherwise, his suit is in limitation. Only point which appellant can be allowed to agitate is that, Defendant No. 3 is bonafide purchaser for value without notice.............." 8. Only point which appellant can be allowed to agitate is that, Defendant No. 3 is bonafide purchaser for value without notice.............." 8. It is clear from the above, that the lower Appellate Court has prohibited the Appellant Defendant No. 3 from prosecuting his appeal merely because the Appellant Defendant No. 3 was a second purchaser lis pendens. In my opinion, in the absence of any provision in law prohibiting or preventing a party like the Appellant Defendant No. 3 who purchased the suit property lis pendens from the purchaser, cannot be prohibited and rather a court of law cannot shut the door and prevent him from prosecuting his appeal. The Appellant Defendant No. 3 stepped into the shoes of Defendant No. 2 and thereafter through him, into the shoes of Defendant No. 1 and became purchaser for value. Whether the Appellant Defendant No. 3 was a bona fide purchaser for value is a question, which must be determined in the context of the entire pleadings and evidence. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the Respondents is not directly on the point involved in the instant case as against the decision cited by the learned counsel for the Appellant which is categorically on the point. I, quote paragraph 43 from the decision in the case of Thomson Press, 2013(3) ALL MR 408 (S.C.) (supra), which reads as under: "43. Before parting with the order, it is clarified that the appellant after impleadment as party defendant shall be permitted to take all such defences which are available to the vendor Sawhneys' as the appellant derived title, if any, from the vendor on the basis of purchase of the suit property subsequent to the agreement with the plaintiff and during the pendency of the suit." I, therefore, answer the aforesaid question in the affirmative. As a sequel to the above, the following order is inevitable. ORDER "a) Second Appeal No. 291 of 2013 is partly allowed. b) The impugned judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2004 is set aside. c) The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1986 are remitted to the lower Appellate Court for fresh hearing and disposal in light of the above observations. d) The parties to the appeal are directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court on 30th September 2014. c) The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1986 are remitted to the lower Appellate Court for fresh hearing and disposal in light of the above observations. d) The parties to the appeal are directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court on 30th September 2014. e) The lower Appellate Court shall decide the appeal within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. f) Interim order, if any, passed by this court, in the present appeal, shall continue till disposal of the appeal after remand. g) No order as to costs. h) In view of disposal of the present second appeal, Civil Application No. 740 of 2014 does not survive. Same stands dismissed as in fructuous."