ORDER : The plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 20.12.2018 on I.A. No.30/2018 in O.S. No.1754/2006 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. It is stated in the plaint that on 29.11.1971 a partition was effected amongst Hanuma Reddy and his children and at that partition, Hanuma Reddy was allotted certain properties as shown in schedule-A of the plaint. It is further stated in the plaint though Sy.No.19 was purchased by Hanuma Reddy, it has been partitioned and all acquisitions by Hanuma Reddy or other members of the family are out of joint family members. The joint family of Hanuma Reddy has already been in afferent circumstances. As the family was joint in full, all the properties were enjoyed jointly. Though some of the properties were purchased in the name of the coparceners, all the properties were being enjoyed commonly etc. On these and other contentions, the plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of the suit properties and for Permanent Injunction. 3. The contesting defendants filed the written statement contending that in view of the earlier partition, the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The defendant No.24 who purchased item No.4 of the suit schedule property in the year 1970 i.e., prior to filing of the suit, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came to be allowed. The defendant No.24 also filed the written statement. The trial Court during the pendency of the proceedings on 25.11.2010 granted the order of Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. Against the order passed by the trial Court, Miscellaneous First Appeal came to be filed before this Court by some of the defendants, which came to be dismissed. 5. The trial Court during the pendency of the proceedings on 25.11.2010 granted the order of Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. Against the order passed by the trial Court, Miscellaneous First Appeal came to be filed before this Court by some of the defendants, which came to be dismissed. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that on 24.7.2017 the present petitioner – plaintiff filed memo to withdraw the suit against the defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule properties. The trial Court allowed the memo on 10.8.2017 and permitted to withdraw the suit against the defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property. Thereafter on 4.11.2017 the plaintiff filed an application to recall the order dated 10.8.2017. In the mean time, the defendant No.24 sold item No.4 of the suit schedule property on 24.1.2018 in favour of M/s Sumadhura Infra Con Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter the matter was posted on 24.4.2018. On 24.4.2018, the Court posted the application filed by the plaintiff for recalling, along with the main suit. That was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.22941/2018. During the pendency of the writ petition, the said application for recalling was allowed on 7.12.2018 and the writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I.A. No.30 for impleadment of pendente lite purchaser on 15.12.2018. The defendant No.24 alone filed objections. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 rejected the said application. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff to implead the purchaser of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule properties during pendente lite of the suit, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. 7. Sri G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff to implead the purchaser of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule properties during pendente lite of the suit, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the defendant No.24 was purchaser of item No.4 of ‘C’ schedule properties prior to filing of the suit and inspite of order of injunction granted by the trial court on 25.11.2010 against all the defendants not to alienate the property, in violation of the order of injunction, the defendant No.24 has sold item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property to the proposed impleading applicant on 24.1.2018 and therefore the proposed impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party to resolve the dispute between the parties. He further contended that if the proposed impleading applicant is not impleaded to the proceedings, he may alienate the property to the 3rd party and it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, the impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party. Therefore he sought to quash the order passed by the trial Court by allowing the present writ petition. 8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: 1. Shaukat Ali vs. Bhag Chand and others {LAWS (RAJ) 2016 3 97}, wherein the Rajasthan High Court observed that before a new party is impleaded under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice must be issued to the proposed party . 2. Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and another { AIR 2005 SC 2209 .. paragraphs 14 and 16}, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. 9. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. 9. Per contra, Sri G.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.24 and Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.29, 46 and 47 and Sri G. Nagaraja, learned advocate for Respondent No.29 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the dispute is between the plaintiff and the members of the joint family. If any person purchased the property during the pendency of the proceedings, the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would attract and any alienation made is always subject to result of the suit. The applicant who purchased during the pendency of the proceedings has not filed application before the Court. Only the plaintiff has filed application for impleading. He also contended that earlier, the very plaintiff filed application for withdrawal of the suit against defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ schedule property, which came to be allowed on 10.8.2017. Thereafter as an after thought, the application filed to recall the order dated 10.8.2017. The said application came to be allowed. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. He further contended that when the matter was posted for crossexamination of DW.1, at that stage, the application came to be filed. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition. 10. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is: “Whether the trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the pendente lite purchaser as additional defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the case ? ” 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 12. ” 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 12. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession contending that he is entitled to share though he has pleaded in the plaint that there was earlier partition in the year 1971. The contesting defendants filed the written statement and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is also not in dispute that the trial Court granted the order of injunction on 25.11.2010 restraining all the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. The said order of injunction is still operating till today. When the order of injunction was operating, the plaintiff filed memo on 24.7.2017 to withdraw the suit against the defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property, which came to be allowed on 10.8.2017. We do not know what prompted the plaintiff to file an application on 4.11.2017 to recall the order dated 10.8.2017 of withdrawal of the suit against the defendant No.4 in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property. In the interregnum, during the existence of the order of injunction, the defendant No.24 sold item No.4 of the suit schedule property to the proposed defendant i.e., M/s Sumadhura Infra Con Pvt. Ltd., on 24.1.2018 under the registered sale deed for valuable consideration of Rs.45 crores. Admittedly, the plaintiff already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e., separately numbered and the same is pending for enquiry. 13. Thereafter when the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW.1, at that stage the plaintiff filed I.A. No.30 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the proposed defendant i.e, M/s Sumadhura Infra Con. Private Limited as additional defendant since he is a proper and necessary party, raising various contentions. It is contended that the defendant No.24 has acquired the right in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ schedule property and it is in fact defendant NO.24 who voluntarily got impleaded in the suit and as such the impleading applicant is necessary and proper party to resolve the dispute. Only the defendant No.24 filed objections to the said application. 14. Only the defendant No.24 filed objections to the said application. 14. The trial Court considering the application and the objections has proceeded to reject the application and recorded a finding that the plaintiff has pleaded a fact that has occurred during the pendency of the suit and when a transaction is covered under lispendens, question of bringing subsequent transferee does not arise. From the pleadings of the parties, it is noted that defendant No.24 has been arrayed in the suit as purchaser of portion of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property. It is settled principles of law that, whoever purchases the schedule property during the pendency of the suit, does so at his risk and the transaction would be subject to the decision of the Court. When the defendant No.24 is already on record as purchaser, whatever be his right, if any in the schedule property would be decided during final disposal of the suit. Therefore the proposed defendant is not a necessary and proper party for determination of the dispute pending between the parties. Accordingly, the application came to be rejected. 15. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to consider the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that the Court at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court, effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. It is clear that the suit is pending for adjudication between the parties in respect of partition among the members of the joint family. The defendant No.24 is not a member of the joint family, who purchased item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property in the year 1970 and his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed by the Court. The defendant No.24 is not a member of the joint family, who purchased item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property in the year 1970 and his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed by the Court. The proposed defendant purchased the said property on 24.1.2018 during the pendency of the suit, that too when the injunction was operating against all the defendants, knowing fully well that the defendant No.4 has sold item No.4 of the ‘C’ Suit Schedule property taking the risk of disobeying the order of Temporary injunction and the said alienation is always hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The proposed impleading applicant is not a necessary party to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the claim and settle all the questions involved in the suit for partition between the members of the joint family. 16. It is also not in dispute that the impleading applicant who purchased item No.4 on 24.1.2018 from the defendant No.4 has not come before the Court alleging that during the pendency of the suit, there is likelihood of the plaintiff and the defendant No.24 colluding together to deprive his rights and therefore he should be impleaded to protect his property purchased under the registered sale deed. The Plaintiff is not bound to make him a party and the alienee has no absolute right to be joined as a party in the suit for partition. Therefore on that ground also, the application filed by the plaintiff has to be rejected. 17. It is well settled that in a suit for partition, at the stage of passing of a preliminary decree for partition, the only question that needs to be adjudicated by the trial Court is whether the property in question is a coparcenery property or a joint family property and if so, what is the share to which the family members are entitled to. For the declaration of such shares at the preliminary stage, the presence of alienee (pendente lite purchaser) is not necessary. My view is fortified by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S.K. Lakshminarasappa, since deceased by his L.Rs., vs. Sri B. Rudraiah and others reported in ILR 2012 Kar 4129, wherein at paragraphs 61 and 62 it is held as under: 61. My view is fortified by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S.K. Lakshminarasappa, since deceased by his L.Rs., vs. Sri B. Rudraiah and others reported in ILR 2012 Kar 4129, wherein at paragraphs 61 and 62 it is held as under: 61. In a suit for partition, at the stage of passing of a preliminary decree for partition, the only question that needs to be adjudicated by the Trial Court is, whether the property in question is a coparcenery property or a joint family property and if so, what is the share to which these family members are entitled to. For the declaration of such shares, the presence of alienees is not necessary. Even in their absence the suit of the plaintiff can be adjudicated upon and their presence is in no way necessary for the Court to determine the questions involved in the suit. It is only after declaration of shares, at the stage of dividing the property by metes and bounds and putting them in possession of the extent of the share so declared, the character, validity and the nature of alienations have to be taken note of. It is at that stage, it is necessary to hear the persons who are claiming title through such members of the family and who have parted with valuable consideration and who are in possession of the property. This is because if they have to be dispossessed from the property, if their sale deeds are to be annulled, they have to be heard. Therefore, a suit for partition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of these third parties/strangers to the family. A suit for partition can be dismissed only if the members of the family who have an interest in the property are not made parties as they are the only necessary parties to the suit. At worst if a person other than a necessary party is not made a party to the suit, the decree passed in their absence may not bind them, if they are claiming any independent title to the property being in possession of the same. At worst if a person other than a necessary party is not made a party to the suit, the decree passed in their absence may not bind them, if they are claiming any independent title to the property being in possession of the same. If members of a joint family file a suit for partition without impleading alienees and collude and get a decree passed affecting the interest of alienees, the said collusive decree being void, as alienees being not made parties and such a decree does not in any way affect their interests. But, a suit for partition cannot be dismissed on that ground. 62. In a suit for partition not only those who are entitled to a share in the joint family property but also those persons who are entitled to maintenance and also those persons for whose marriages provision has to be made from out of the funds of joint family property are necessary parties. A transferee of an item of property from the vendee who purchased it from a party to the suit is not directly a transferee and therefore there is no nexus between the transferee and the party to the suit from whom the property was purchased. Therefore, such transferee is not a necessary party to the suit. In a suit for partition of properties of a Joint Hindu Family, there is no legal bar even after a preliminary decree had been passed, in an appropriate circumstances to add a party under Order 1 Rule 10, in the final decree proceedings if the Court thinks that the addition of such party is necessary to adjudicate upon all questions effectively and completely. The proceedings in a partition suit do not become final unless the final decree is passed. It is only the final decree that brings about termination of suit. The Court can add a party in a partition suit even after a preliminary decree but before a final decree takes place. A suit for partition is finally disposed off only with the passing of a final decree. Impleading of additional parties subsequent to passing of a preliminary decree in a suit for partition is permissible, only if none of the questions already settled by the preliminary decree would not have to be reopened by reason of such a joinder. A suit for partition is finally disposed off only with the passing of a final decree. Impleading of additional parties subsequent to passing of a preliminary decree in a suit for partition is permissible, only if none of the questions already settled by the preliminary decree would not have to be reopened by reason of such a joinder. Therefore, it is clear in order to decide the share to which each member of a family or a person claiming under such member of a joint family, the necessary parties are only the members of the joint family. Once all those members are made parties, the suit for partition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The purchasers from those members of the family or subsequent purchasers from the earlier purchasers are proper parties in a suit for partition. They could be, added even during final decree proceedings. For not adding them as parties, a suit for partition cannot be dismissed. 18. In so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without notice to the proposed impleading applicant, the trial Court ought not to have rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, the same cannot be accepted as the very judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Shaukat Ali cited supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was a case wherein before a new party is impleaded under provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice must be issued to the proposed party and it is not appropriate or correct procedure that notice be issued after the Court comes to the conclusion that the proposed party is a necessary party and it is always available to such party to plead that it in fact is not a necessary party. Admittedly, in the present case, the pendente lite purchaser under the registered sale deed is not before the Court by filing an application and it is the application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. Admittedly, in the present case, the pendente lite purchaser under the registered sale deed is not before the Court by filing an application and it is the application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. In the another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw cited surpa, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order 1 Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds on the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. 20. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests and he is entitled to be heard in the matter on merits of the case. Admittedly as already stated above in the present case, an alienee pendente lite is not before this Court alleging that there is likelihood of the plaintiff and the defendant No.24 colluding together to deprive his rights and therefore he should be impleaded to protect his rights. By reading of Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that ultimately it is the Court which has to exercise the discretion judicially based on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw cited supra. By reading of Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that ultimately it is the Court which has to exercise the discretion judicially based on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw cited supra. The said dictum declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of the said case. The said dictum has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the affirmative holding that the trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the pendente lite purchaser as additional defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner plaintiff has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court exercising the powers under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it is the risk of the pendente lite purchaser who purchased the property in question on 24.1.2018 and it is always hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and binding on the parties to the lis including the alienee purchaser if he has purchased during the pendency of the suit. The purchaser/s who purchased the property in question during the existence of the order of injunction and pendency of the suit, cannot thereafter claim any equity. Ordered accordingly.