JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) - Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially respondent Nos.1 to 9-plaintiffs-Mehar Singh son of Prem Singh and others(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P-2) for a decree of redemption of mortgage and correction of jamabandi, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining respondent Nos.10 to 36-defendants-Santo Devi widow of Bakhtawar and others(for short “the defendants”) from interfering into their peaceful and lawful possession of the property in dispute. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners-Smt.Bhagwani wife of Mange Ram and Smt.Santosh Devi wife of Ramesh Chand (subsequent vendees) moved an application(Annexure P-3) for impleading them as defendants in the main suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiffs refuted the prayer of the petitioners, filed the reply (Annexure P-4) and prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. Taking into consideration the entire material and facts on record, the trial Court dismissed the application(Annexure P-3) of the petitioners, by virtue of impugned order dated 09.01.2014(Annexure P-1). 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioners were the necessary parties to be impleaded as a defendants, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake to dismiss their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors. 1999(3) Civll Court Cases 175 (SC) and Sumtibai & Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors., [2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3201] : 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 593 (SC) are at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 1999(3) Civll Court Cases 175 (SC) and Sumtibai & Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors., [2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3201] : 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 593 (SC) are at all applicable to the facts of the present case. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid judgments, wherein it was observed that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to effectively and completely adjudicate the litigation, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below. 7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for redemption of mortgage, declaration, correction of jamabandi and for permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner depicted here-in-above. It is not a matter of dispute that the defendants are the mortgagees and were not yet declared owner by any competent court. Therefore, they had not any alienable rights to sell the suit land to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that they have purchased the land, in question, through General Power of Attorney of defendant Nos.1 to 26, by way of registered sale-deed dated 30.11.2009. That means, the petitioners are subsequent vendees and have purchased the property in dispute from the mortgagees. In that eventuality, the petitioners would step into the shoes of their vendors and they cannot claim any independent or more rights than their vendors. They will sink and swim with their vendors in litigation. They can only watch the interest of their vendors in litigation, from whom, they have purchased the land during the pendency of the suit, as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and doctrine of lis pendens is fully attracted in this case, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Dhanna Singh Versus Baljinder Kaur 1998(1) PLR 706 and by this Court in case Jaswinder Singh Versus Sohan Singh and others 2005(1) PLR 593, wherein it was observed that “the subsequent purchaser does not get any right to be impleaded as a party”. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that they are necessary parties to be impleaded as a defendants in the main suit. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that they are necessary parties to be impleaded as a defendants in the main suit. This matter is no more res integra and is well-settled. 8. An identical question came to be disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Sanjay Verma Versus Manik Roy and others, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1332. Having interpreted the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it was ruled (para 12) as under:- “The principles specified in Section 52 of the T.P.Act are in accordance with equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the T.P.Act being a principle of public policy, no question of good faith or bona fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject-matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court.” 9. Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand and the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Moreover, the plaintiffs are dominus litis of their case and they cannot possibly be forced to implead, or to prosecute a person against whom, they are not aggrieved, in any manner. If, the petitioners are impleaded as a defendants, then the possibility of production of irrelevant material on record cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the plaintiffs are dominus litis of their case and they cannot possibly be forced to implead, or to prosecute a person against whom, they are not aggrieved, in any manner. If, the petitioners are impleaded as a defendants, then the possibility of production of irrelevant material on record cannot be ruled out. If they(petitioners) intend to settle their personal score, they ought to have availed their appropriate legal remedy for redressal of their grievance, instead of filing the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant context. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of superintendence jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order dated 09.01.2014(Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————