JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition against an order dated 19.09.2017 whereby, the learned Additional District Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) has rejected the petitioners' application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which, they wanted to implead the subsequent purchaser of the suit property as a party-defendant. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the record, including the order impugned dated 19.09.2017, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed defendant for whom, the application had been filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure having subsequently purchased the suit property, cannot be impleaded as a party-defendant. 3. The provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act takes care of the rights of the petitioners and the Transaction; wherein it has been provided that the subsequent purchaser of the disputed property pendente lite shall also be bound by the decree. In other words, by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the judgment and decree passed in the present suit shall also apply to the transaction, if any, entered into by the parties, during the pendency of the suit proceedings. 4. In view of the above, there is no error, infirmity or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Court. 5. The writ petition stands dismissed.