JUDGMENT : Jayant Banerji, J. 1. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is that the appellant is a subsequent purchaser of the property in dispute in respect of which, Original Suit No. 639 of 1992 (Surya Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Smt. Harbheji and others) was filed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.8.1987 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant, Smt. Harbheji transferred her share in the property in dispute by means of a registered sale-deed dated 11.1.2008 in favour of the applicant-appellant. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on 25.11.2013. However, it is alleged that the defendant-respondent lost interest in litigation after selling the property to the applicant-appellant and so the Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff-respondent was not properly contested and, therefore, the appeal came to be allowed on 17.5.2019 and a decree of specific performance was passed. 3. It is contended that the defendant-respondent has lost interest with regard to her share in the property which was sold to the applicant-appellant and she does not intend to file an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the lower appellate Court and since the right of the applicant-appellant would be prejudicially affected for want of challenge to the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, this second appeal is being filed alongwith the aforesaid application seeking leave to appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has referred to the provisions of Section 146 and Order 22 Rule 10 CPC as well as Chapter X Rule 1 of the High Court Rules and has referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another, 1958 SCR 1287 , Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and another v. Vishnu Hari Patil and others, (1983) 1 SCC 18 , Hardevinder Singh v. Paramjit Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 261 and Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal and others, (2004) 2 SCC 601 , to contend that under the circumstances the application seeking leave is to be allowed. 5. 5. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate while referring to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and Rule 1 of Chapter X of the Allahabad High Court Rules has strongly opposed the application and has stated that the applicant-appellant is not a bona fide purchaser and moreover, the essential requirement for applicability of Rule 1 of Chapter X of the Allahabad High Court Rules have not been met, therefore, the application for leave should be rejected. 6. The plaintiff-respondent has chosen not to file any counter affidavit to the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, if accepted, would, in the facts and circumstances of the case, create a situation that would prejudicially affect the interest of the applicant-appellant and the provision of Chapter X Rule 1 ought not to be interpreted in a hyper-technical way so as to deprive a person of statutory remedy of appeal. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this application is allowed and the applicant-appellant is permitted to pursue this appeal. Office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal as well as the connected appeals. List this appeal on 29.8.2019 as fresh under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.