JUDGMENT : VIVEK AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2017 passed by the Court of 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Morena rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC 3. It is petitioners' contention t ring pendency of the suit though there was an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs- petitioners, but defendant no.2 has sold the property in favour of certain third parties and the petitioners wish to implead them as a party. This application has been rejected on the ground that as the suit is pending since 2008, therefore, the provisions of lis pendens under Section 52 will be applicable and there is no need to implead them as a party. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Urmila Patel & Another v. Laxmibai & Others as reported in 2001 (1) MPLJ 480 , wherein relying on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others : AIR 1958 SC 886 and Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Others : AIR 1999 SC 976 has held that the purchasers are necessary parties to the suit and their impleadment is necessary for deciding questions whether sales were committed in contempt and disregard of injunction and whether purchasers were bona fide transferees. In view of such judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Misc. Petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order needs to be set aside. 5. As far as the law laid down in the case of Urmila Patel (Supra), the ratio is that the applicants are entitled to be impleaded as necessary parties as they have to defend their sales and purchasers are necessary parties to the suit and their impleadment is necessary for deciding the questions whether sales were committed in contempt and disregard of injunction, the purchasers are to be pleaded as necessary parties to the appeal as they have to defend their sales and in any case to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, their impleadment is necessary. 6. Thus, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Certified copy as per rules.