JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's application for setting aside the judgment, order and decree dated 22.4.2011 for specific performance of an agreement to sell and cancellation of a sale deed has been rejected and so is the appeal arising therefrom. 3. In challenging the above two orders, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that she was impleaded as a party in the suit subsequently and was not given any opportunity to file written statement which led to the passing of the ex-parte decree. 4. The facts of the case reveal that respondent no. 1 filed a suit against respondent no. 2 for specific performance of an agreement. During the pendency of the suit petitioner alleges purchased the suit property from respondent no. 2. Thus application was filed for his impleadment and for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed. The aforesaid impleadment and amendment was allowed and ultimately the suit was decreed on 22.4.2011. 5. Learned counsel has placed before the Court the order sheet of the suit specifically the order dated 9.4.2009. 6. The said order rejects the application of the petitioner for filing written statement. The aforesaid application was rightly rejected as till that date petitioner was not added as the defendant in the suit. 7. The application for impleadment of the petitioner and for amending the plaint was allowed on 22.10.2009. The impleadment was permitted in the presence of the petitioner who has filed vakalatnama 35 Ga. 8. In view of the above order, the petitioner had notice/knowledge of the suit and that she is party in the same. 9. Thus by merely saying that she has stopped appearing in the case after she was refused opportunity to file written statement on 9.4.2009, it can not be said that she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the suit. 10. The petitioner has not assigned any reason for her absence from the court after 22.10.2009. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the alleged ex-parte decree. 12. 10. The petitioner has not assigned any reason for her absence from the court after 22.10.2009. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the alleged ex-parte decree. 12. Moreover, the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the property who has purchased it during the pendency of the suit and as such her rights are subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. In such circumstances, I do not find that it is a case which warrants exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The petition is disposed of .