[2025:RJ-JP:40075] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14735/2025 1. Jai Singh Parmar, S/o Shyamlal 2. Jaipal Singh, S/o Shyamlal 3. Jitendra Singh S/o Kaptan Singh, All R/o Town-Rudawal, Tehsil-Roopwas, Dist. Bharatpur. ----Petitioners/Applicants Versus 1. Siyaram Parmar S/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 95 Years, R/o Rudawal, Tehsil-Roopwas, Dist- Bharatpur. ----Plaintiff/Respondent 2. Chhagan Singh S/o Devi Singh, R/o Nagla Thikariya Bhauja Baroda, Tehsil-Bayana, Dist-Bharatpur. 3. Prahalad S/o Ramdulara Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House Ni. 1, Ramniwas Colony, Rudawal, Tehsil Roopwas, Dist-Bharatpur. ----Defendants/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhusan Bansal with Ritu Bansal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 24/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners / applicants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a challenge to the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, Camp Roopbas (for short ‘the court below’) in Civil Suit No. 38/2018, whereby the application [2025:RJ-JP:40075] (2 of 4) [CW-14735/2025] filed by the petitioners / applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with section 151 CPC for impleadment as a party defendant was dismissed. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ applicants submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the suit property and therefore, they are necessary and proper parties for proper adjudication of the dispute before the Court and therefore, they are required to be impleaded as party defendants. 3. Heard. 4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners/ applicants and perused the material made available on the record. 5. The suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 06.12.2017 has been filed by one Siyaram Parmar against the defendants namely; Chhagan Singh and Prahalad. 6. Plaintiff Siyaram Parmar is the brother of the applicants namely; Jai Singh Parmar and Jaipal singh. The suit was filed on 27.04.2018 and the applicants are said to have purchased the suit property from the defendant No.1- Chhagan Singh on 26.07.2018 and filed this application for impleadment on 10.07.2019. As regards the dispute before the trial court is concerned i.e. in respect of the cancellation of the sale deed dated 06.12.2017, the petitioners/ applicants cannot be said to be necessary and proper parties because [2025:RJ-JP:40075] (3 of 4) [CW-14735/2025] they are not party to that sale deed and they have also no concerned with the suit property till they purchase the same through sale deed from the defendants. The petitioners/ applicants are said to have purchased the suit property by registered sale deed after institution of the suit. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’) deals with the transfer of the tangible immovable property made during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the provisions of Section 52 of the Act of 1882 fully take care rights of the petitioners/ applicants. 7. One more fact which clinches is that the plaintiff- Siyaram Parmar is brother of petitioners /applicants No.1 and 2 namely; Jai Singh Parmar and Jaipal Singh and it would be very difficult to say that the petitioners/ applicants were not knowing of the fact of pendency of the suit as regards the suit property which the petitioners/ applicants said to have purchased from the defendants. The petitioners / applicants knowing it well that any suit is pending as regards the property which they have purchased during the pendency of the suit, they are to face the consequences and their rights are also safeguarded by the provisions of section 52 of the Act of 1882. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ applicants has also referred the judgment passed in the case of M/s. [2025:RJ-JP:40075] (4 of 4) [CW-14735/2025] Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors., reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 757. 9. The facts of the case law referred are quite different from the facts of the present case. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners/ applicants cannot be said to be a necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the dispute before the court below. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners / applicants is dismissed. 12. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK-Dy. Registrar/71