Order : 1. This order would decide the prayer of applicant Dhanpatraj S/o Late Surja Ram to be impleaded as party, respondent in this appeal, under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC vide IA No. 1/2023. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants had brought Civil Original Suit No. 7/2012 for a decree of specific performance of contract against respondent No.2 Pukhraj. The suit was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.9.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has gained right and interest in the suit property by purchase of a portion of the same, therefore, opportunity of hearing to the applicant in this appeal is necessary. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants and contesting respondents contends that right to the appellants has accrued vide agreement with Jadav Devi through her power of attorney holder respondent no. 2, whereas, the applicant claims right through respondent no. 1 by an unregistered sale deed which is not even dated, rather, a fabricated document. 5. The case and claim of the plaintiffs/appellants in the suit is that indisputably, Late Kalu Singh was owner of khasra no. 203 area 44 bigha 3 biswa in Village Sangaria. After death of Kalu Singh on 5.11.1989, his wife Jadav Devi succeeded the property as Kalu Singh died issue-less. Jadav Devi was mutated in revenue records and on 21.11.1992, she entered into an agreement to sale the entire property aforesaid to the plaintiffs on total consideration money of Rs.8,80,000/-. On the same day, Jadav Devi executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2 Pukhraj authorizing him to complete the formality of sale and execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants, after receipt of the remaining consideration money. It is stated that part consideration money was paid and the sale deed was to be executed within a period of 2 years. In the meantime, Jadav Devi died, hence, suit was filed against respondent No.2 Pukhraj. 6. Pukhraj appeared in the suit and accepted the averment in the plaint and denied that respondent no. 1 Bhawani Singh was adopted son of Kalu Singh or Jadav Devi. Respondent no. 1 was impleaded as party in the suit for the reason that respondent no. In the meantime, Jadav Devi died, hence, suit was filed against respondent No.2 Pukhraj. 6. Pukhraj appeared in the suit and accepted the averment in the plaint and denied that respondent no. 1 Bhawani Singh was adopted son of Kalu Singh or Jadav Devi. Respondent no. 1 was impleaded as party in the suit for the reason that respondent no. 1 surreptitiously got his name mutated in the revenue records in place of Jadav Devi stating therein that due to inadvertence name of Jadav Devi was recorded as Kalu Singh had already adopted respondent no. 1 Bhawani Singh and has executed a Will in favour of Bhawani Singh whereunder entire suit property was given to Bhawani Singh. The mutation order was challenged by Jadav Devi and appellate authority has stayed the mutation made in favour of respondent no. 1. 7. Respondent no. 1 Bhawani Singh stated that he is adopted son of Kalu Singh and Kalu Singh has executed a Will in his favour in respect of the entire suit property. The case of the applicant is that Gautam Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property from respondent no. 1 Bhawani Singh, in pursuance of the agreement, Bhawani Singh executed sale deed, as agreed with the society, to the prospective purchaser. The applicant Dhanpatraj is one of the purchaser of a portion of the said khasra bearing plot no. 150 carved out by the said society. When applicant visited the purchased plot on 11.8.2023, he saw a Board hanging there disclosing that High Court has granted stay on this property. Thereafter, the application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was filed on the ground the applicant has got an interest in the suit property during pendency of the suit. A copy of the sale deed annexed by the applicant would show that it is neither dated nor registered. The valuation of the property purchased by the applicant Rs.9,000/-. In the circumstance, the law requires that sale would be affected only through a registered deed and if the deed is not registered one, the sale cannot be treated as complete as such, no title would pass to the applicant by virtue of the said document. 8. Moreover, the society had only an agreement to sale from respondent no. In the circumstance, the law requires that sale would be affected only through a registered deed and if the deed is not registered one, the sale cannot be treated as complete as such, no title would pass to the applicant by virtue of the said document. 8. Moreover, the society had only an agreement to sale from respondent no. 1 Bhawani Singh and the agreement could only have created rights and obligations to be enforced by the process of law. The agreement does not confer any title on the prospective purchaser. Moreover, the sale deed in favour of the applicant is unregistered one. As such it also did not create any title. In the circumstance, the remedy to the applicant lies elsewhere and not in this appeal for the reason that the applicant is said to have purchased the property through holder of power of attorney of Bhawani Singh namely Shyam Kishore Bhootra. Since the applicant has not gained status of a transferee pendente lite nor the applicant claims his title through the vendor of the appellants herein namely Jadav Devi through attorney, respondent no. 2 Pukhraj, rather, claim of the applicant is against respondent no. 1 through his attorney holder Shyam Kishore Bhootra who is not a party herein. Hence, prayer for impleadment cannot be allowed which would just obstruct speedy disposal of the case between the parties to the suit. 9. In H. Anjanappa and Ors. Vs. A. Prabhakar & Ors. and H. Anjanappa & Ors. Vs. Beena Anthony & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 1180-1181 of 2025 and 1182-1183 of 2025 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of impleadment of a lis pendente purchaser and after consideration of the previous judgments concluded in para 58 as follows:- “ 58. Vs. A. Prabhakar & Ors. and H. Anjanappa & Ors. Vs. Beena Anthony & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 1180-1181 of 2025 and 1182-1183 of 2025 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of impleadment of a lis pendente purchaser and after consideration of the previous judgments concluded in para 58 as follows:- “ 58. From a conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments, touching upon the present aspect, broadly, the following would emerge: (i) First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either Under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure or Under Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, as a general principle; (ii) Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right; (iii) Thirdly, there is no absolute Rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party; (iv) Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; (v) Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the Plaintiff on record; (vi) Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented; (vii) Sevently, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and, (viii) Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged Under Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.” 10. Evidently, even a transferee pendente lite cannot claim impleadment as of right. Evidently, even a transferee pendente lite cannot claim impleadment as of right. In the case on hand, the applicant is not a transferee pendente lite as discussed above nor the presence of the applicant is necessary for just decision in the suit because claim of the appellants in the present suit is against some different person than the applicant, therefore, prayer for impleadment is hereby refused. 11. IA No. 1/2023 stands dismissed. 12. List the matter on 18.3.2025 for hearing.