JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and opposite party No.5 is said to be proforma opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Sub Judge-II-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Ranchi in M.C.A. Case No.227 of 2024 arising out of M.C.A. No.850 of 2019 in Original Partition Suit No.193 of 2013 whereby the petition filed under provision of Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 12 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners for impleading has been rejected by the learned Court. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one Ramlakhan Sahu had transferred the properties which subsequently transpired that is part of the said property in Original Partition Suit No.193 of 2013. The properties purchased by the petitioners herein from said Ram Lakhan Sahu relates to 7.5 decimal of Plot No.175 under Khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No.4186/3745 dated 20.06.2013 and thereafter the petitioner No.1 is in khas possession over her purchased property. Petitioner No.2 namely Birendra Kumar Mahto got the land measuring in area 6 decimal of Plot No.175 under Khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No.6780/5451 dated 01.09.2014 and after purchase he is in khas possession over his purchased property. Petitioner No.3 namely Sushila Singh got the land measuring in area 25 decimals of Plot No.175 under Khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No.5590/5021 dated 17.08.2013 and after purchase she is in khas possession over her purchased property. Petitioner No.4 namely Parmila Singh got the land measuring in area 5 decimal of Plot No.175 under Khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No.5591/2022 dated 17.08.2013 and after purchase she is in khas possession over her purchased property. Petitioner No.4 namely Parmila Singh got the land measuring in area 5 decimal of Plot No.175 under Khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No.5591/2022 dated 17.08.2013 and after purchase she is in khas possession over her purchased property. Petitioner No.5 namely Bachu Choudhary got the land measuring in area 6 decimal of Plot No.175 under Khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No.4187/3746 dated 20.06.2013 and after purchase he is in khas possession over his purchased property. Petitioner no.6 namely Inderjeet Choudhary got the land measuring in area 4 decimal of Plot No.175 under khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No.4188/3747 dated 20.06.2013 and after purchase he is in khas possession over his purchased property. 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the purchase was in full knowledge of the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 herein, however, despite such knowledge, opposite party Nos.1 to 4 never informed the petitioners herein that they also had a claim over the properties or that the properties purchased by the petitioners herein were part of the joint family properties of the opposite parties. He submits that this has come to the knowledge recently to the petitioners and in view of that the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been filed for impleading them as the purchaser of the land in question from the co-sharer and 50% has been allotted to the transferer of the petitioners in the preliminary decree and at the final decree the said petition was filed which has been rejected by the learned Court. He submits that once the petitioners are found to be the purchaser of the part of the property which has been allotted in the share of the transferer, they are entitled to claim their share as per the sale deed and to buttress this argument he relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi and Others versus P. Mohan and Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719 , and he refers to paragraph No.5 which is as under :- 5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the respondents nos.2,3,4 & 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings. 5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that due to work out the equity as the petitioners are the purchaser of the land they can be made party. He further relied in the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and Another versus Vishnu Hari Patil and Others reported in (1983) 1 SCC 18 , and he refers to paragraph 6 of the said judgment which is as under :- 6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognizes the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard. He can also prefer an appeal against an order made in the said proceedings but with the leave of the appellate court where he is not already brought on record. The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of any suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an official receiver who takes over the assets of such a party on his insolvency. An heir or a legatee or an official receiver or a transferee can participate in the execution proceedings even though their names may not have been shown in the decree, preliminary or final. If they apply to the court to be impleaded as parties they cannot be turned out. The Collector who has to effect partition of an estate under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no doubt to divide it in accordance with the decree sent to him. But if a party to such a decree dies leaving some heirs about whose interest there is no dispute should he fold up his hands and return the papers to the civil court? He need not do so. He may proceed to allot the share of the deceased party to his heirs. Similarly, he may, when there is no dispute, allot the shares of a deceased party in favour of his legatees. In the case of insolvency of a party, the official receiver may be allotted the share of the insolvent. In the case of transferees pendente lite also, if there is no dispute, the Collector may proceed to make allotment of properties in an equitable manner instead of rejecting their claim for such equitable partition on the ground that they have no locus standi. A transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition. A transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition. A transferee from him, therefore, can also do so. Such a construction of section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure advances the cause of justice. Otherwise in every case where a party dies, or where a party is adjudicated as an insolvent or where he transfers some interest in the suit property pendente lite the matter has got to be referred back to the civil court even though there may be no dispute about the succession, devolution or transfer of interest. In any such case where there is no dispute if the Collector makes an equitable partition taking into consideration the interests of all concerned including those on whom any interest in the subject matter has devolved, he would neither be violating the decree nor transgressing any law. His action would not be ultra vires. On the other hand, it would be in conformity with the intention of the Legislature which has placed the work of partition of lands subject to payment of assessment to the Government in his hands to be carried out ’in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition or the separate possession of shares’. 6. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of the partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. On this ground, he submits that in light of above two judgments, the case of the petitioners are fully covered and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the learned Court may kindly be directed to implead the petitioners herein. 7. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the suit is of 2013 and unnecessarily for delaying the proceeding this petition has been filed belatedly and in view of that this may kindly be dismissed. He refers to Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and submits that in absence of leave of the Court such transfer cannot be made and if such is made that is not in accordance with law. He refers to Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and submits that in absence of leave of the Court such transfer cannot be made and if such is made that is not in accordance with law. He relied in the case of Sarvinder Singh versus Dalip Singh and Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 539 , and he refers to paragraph No.5 which is as under :- 5. Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents are necessary or proper parties to the suit? It cannot be disputed that the foundation for the exclusive right, title and interest in the property, the subject matter of the suit, is founded upon the registered Will executed by Hira Devi, the mother of the appellant as on May 26, 1952. The trial court noted that in a suit filed on a previous occasion by the appellant, the will was propounded as basis for an exclusive right, title and interest in the said property. He impleaded Rajender Kaur, one of the daughters of Hira Devi, to the suit along with two other sisters and suit came to be decreed by the trial Court on March 29, 1974. The decree became final. In view of those facts, the necessary conclusion that can be deduced is that the foundation for the relief of declaration in the second suit is the registered Will executed by Hira Devi in favour of the appellant on May 26, 1952. The respondents indisputably cannot challenge the legality or the validity of the will executed and registered by Hira Devi on May 26, 1952. Though it may be open to the legal heirs of Rajender Kaur, who was a party to the earlier suit, to resist the claim on any legally available to tenable grounds, those grounds are not available to the respondents. Under those circumstances, the respondents cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit. A necessary party is one whose presence is absolutely necessary and without whose presence the issue cannot effectually and completely be adjudicated upon and decided between the parties. A proper party is one whose presence would be necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the disputes. A necessary party is one whose presence is absolutely necessary and without whose presence the issue cannot effectually and completely be adjudicated upon and decided between the parties. A proper party is one whose presence would be necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the disputes. In either case the respondents cannot be said to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit in which the primary relief was found on the basis of the registered Will executed by the appellant’s mother, Smt. Hira Devi. Moreover, admittedly the respondents claimed right, title and interest pursuant to the registered sale deeds said to have been executed by the defendants-heirs of Rajender Kaur on December 2, 1991 and December 12, 1991, pending suit. 8. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has been considered in that case and it has been held that purchaser is not a necessary party on the same line he further relied in the case of S.N. Arora versus Brokers and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi High Court reported in 2010 (118) DRJ 631 (DB), and he relied at paragraph Nos.16 and 32 which is as under :- 16. As a result of our research and analysis of decisions rendered by the Apex Court, it appears to us that the preponderant view of the Supreme Court of India is that a transferee/purchaser of property, which is the subject matter of litigation, obtains no right to be impleaded in that ligation, even though he is bound by the outcome of the litigation, because of the doctrine of lis pendens. Where there is a deliberate violation of an injunction, or where the Court perceives that the alienee/purchaser/transferor was aware of the pendency of litigation, Courts have not found any obstacle or reason to refuse to implead them. It seems to us that where there has been a deliberate concealment/misrepresentation of the factum of the pendency of litigation by a party to the litigation, equities may come into play in favour of transferee. Even so, the Court should not be oblivious or blind to the equities in favour of the parties to that litigation, who should not be reduced to a position of disadvantage merely because the transfer is to a third party without notice. Even so, the Court should not be oblivious or blind to the equities in favour of the parties to that litigation, who should not be reduced to a position of disadvantage merely because the transfer is to a third party without notice. If we have to choose between the two innocent parties, we would side with the person who has secured his rights by approaching the Court. The transferee/purchaser has the option to initiate criminal action since a deliberate misrepresentation as to the pendency of litigation would lead to criminal liability. Where consideration has been paid, proceedings for its recovery would be maintainable. It is trite that Section 52 of TP Act, which gives statutory expression and recognition of the equitable doctrine of lis pendens, does not get attracted in every litigation. Its operation is restricted to those genre of litigation where the vortex is the right to immoveable property and where such immoveable property is transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit. In all other cases, Section 146 or Order I Rule 10 or Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC may spring into operation. The rigours of lis pendens can be insulated against only with the leave of the Court and it would cause violence to this statutory provision if a party is allowed audience before a Court despite its not having taken the requisite prior permission. There is an admission ticket for suchlike audience, which is in the form of receiving the authority of the Court prior to the transaction. 32. The subject Suit was filed by the Plaintiff on 29.4.2008 and the Sale Deed which the Appellant/Applicant relies on is dated 2.5.2008. Thus, the said transaction is clearly struck by the doctrine of lis pendens. In view of our analysis in respect of law regarding the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite, the Applicant/Appellant has no right to seek impleadment in the suit filed by the Plaintiff prior to execution of the Sale Deed. However, such a transferee will remain bound by the final outcome of the litigation with the transferred property at its fulcrum as per Section 52 of TP Act. 9. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the transferee remains bound by the final outcome of the litigation. He further relied in the case of Brokers and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. versus Om Prakash Bhola & Anr. 9. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the transferee remains bound by the final outcome of the litigation. He further relied in the case of Brokers and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. versus Om Prakash Bhola & Anr. Reported in ILR (2008) II Delhi 57, wherein at paragraph No.10 and 11, it has been held as under :- 10 . At the end of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant also handed over a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi and Ors. v. P. Mohan and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1062 . In that case, an application had been filed on behalf of the purchasers of the suit property for impleading themselves in the suit. It was contended on their behalf that they are bona fide purchasers for value and are entitled to the alienors’ shares in equity and, therefore, they were necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in the pending suit. The district court had come to the conclusion that since the sales in favor of the applicants were covered by the doctrine of lis pendens and since they can only have whatever rights their transferors had, it would not be necessary to deal with their rights separately. The application for impleadment was dismissed. The revision petition filed before the High Court was also dismissed on the ground that the applicants were not entitled to be imp leaded since the rights that they may have cannot be larger than the rights of their vendors, assuming that they were bona fide purchasers. In this factual background, the Supreme Court, in Dhanalakshmi (supra), after referring to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 observed as under: Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co- sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favor in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings. 11. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and the district court and allowed the application for impleadment. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings. 11. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and the district court and allowed the application for impleadment. This decision also appears to be in the same line as Amit Kumar Shaw (supra). It is pertinent to note that, as in Amit Kumar Shaw (supra), so too, in Dhanalakshmi (supra), there is no reference to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh (supra) and Bibi Zubaida Khatoon (supra). As noted above, there appears to be a conflict between the two sets of decisions. While one set indicates that a transferee pendente lite is neither a necessary nor a proper party, the other set expresses the view that a transferee pendente lite would ordinarily be entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. Without going into the controversy of whether the later decisions in Amit Kumar Shaw (supra) and Dhanalakshmi (supra) are per incuriam, this application can be disposed of by noting that all the decisions are agreed that a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to be imp leaded as a party as of right. It is, therefore, in the discretion of the court to allow a transferee pendente lite to be added as a party in a pending suit or not. In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon (supra), the Supreme Court categorically observed that there is no absolute rule that the transferee pendente lite, without leave of the court should in all cases be allowed to join and contest the pending suits. In the present case, the facts disclose that there was a specific order passed by this Court on 21.10.2005 that any transfer of the suit property would be governed by the principle of lis pendens. While it is true that the collaboration agreement was entered into on 13.09.2005 and that the Special Power of Attorney is also of the same date, it is also true that a subsequent Power of Attorney was executed in favor of the applicant on 21.12.2006. While it is true that the collaboration agreement was entered into on 13.09.2005 and that the Special Power of Attorney is also of the same date, it is also true that a subsequent Power of Attorney was executed in favor of the applicant on 21.12.2006. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 carries the expression "cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto...except under the authority of the court...." Therefore, what is covered under Section 52 of is not just the transfer of the property in question, but also any dealing in respect of the same which includes construction etc. It is because the applicant was about to construct on the said property that the plaintiff raised objections and that led to the applicant filing the suit being CS(OS) 1194/2007 against the Managing Director of the plaintiff in the present suit and the defendant No. 1 herein as well as the Residents Welfare Association of C.R. Park. That is an independent action which the applicant has taken and the applicant’s rights would be examined in that suit. Insofar as the present suit is concerned, it is obvious that no leave of the court was taken and the property was sought to be transferred and / or dealt with by a party to the suit. Thus, invoking the principles of equity and justice, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise its discretion in such a manner so as to allow the applicant to be imp leaded in the present suit. Consequently, the application is dismissed. 10. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the Delhi High Court has interpreted the case of Dhanlakshmi and Others (supra) which has been relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and further held that the transferee is not a necessary party. 11. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order and this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. He submits that the preliminary judgment has already been passed on 07.01.2019 and preliminary decree prepared on 15.01.2019 and final decree proceeding has come in the year 2019 itself and now it is at the conclusion stage and at this stage this petition has been filed. He submits that the preliminary judgment has already been passed on 07.01.2019 and preliminary decree prepared on 15.01.2019 and final decree proceeding has come in the year 2019 itself and now it is at the conclusion stage and at this stage this petition has been filed. He submits that in view of the order 26 Rule 16A, the right of the petitioners herein can be protected at the time of Commissioner’s report. On this ground, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 12. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the suit was instituted for partition. The petitioners herein have purchased the part of the property and how they have purchased that has been recorded in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the sale deed Nos. and dates have also been provided which has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4. 13. It is an admitted position that the partition suit was instituted and the provision of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not in dispute, however, the transfer by way of registered deed is there and in light of that the Supreme Court in the Case of Dhanlakshmi and Others (supra) has been pleased to allow the petition considering that the property purchased by purchasers from the other co-sharers are entitled to come on the record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings and in that case also at the final decree proceeding the said prayer was allowed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and that case was also arising out of the partition suit and identical was the situation in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari (supra) relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the case was also arising out of the partition suit and in that case also Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that a transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition and a transferee from him, therefore, can also do so. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition and a transferee from him, therefore, can also do so. Such a construction of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure advances the cause of justice. Otherwise in every case where party dies, or where a party is adjudicated as a insolvent or where he transfers some interest in the suit property pendente lite the matter has got to be referred back to the civil court even though there may be no dispute about the succession, devolution or transfer of interest. Identical is the situation so far the present case is concerned. 14. So far judgment relied by Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 are concerned those judgments are arising out of the specific performance act and the subject matter of the will in that scenario Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court has passed the above orders. The case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the two judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in view of that the Court finds that the parties will not be prejudiced, if the petitioners will be allowed to be impleaded at the final decree stage as the co-sharer has sold the land to the petitioners herein by way of registered sale deed which have been disclosed here-in-above. Further the petitioners are not claiming anything from the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and they are only claiming their part of share from the executor of the sale deed in whose favour 50% of the share of the property has been allotted by way of the preliminary decree. In view of that the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 is hereby set aside. 15. The application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC by the petitioners is hereby allowed subject to a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff before the learned Court. 16. The learned Court will proceed further and all the parties will be provided opportunity to put forth their case. 17. The petitioners herein will not take unnecessary adjournments and the learned Court will decide the same in accordance with law. 18. The parties will cooperate with the learned Court to decide the same expeditiously.