Court No. - 23 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No.

- 545 of 2005 Petitioner :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Noida Thru' Secy. Respondent :- Hargulal & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajendra Kumar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- S.K. Srivastava,A.K.Goyal,Anil Mullick,Suneet Kumar On Restoration Application No. 262806/09 Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. For the reasons disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application, cause shown constitutes sufficient cause, consequently, restoration application is allowed. Order dted 14.9.2009, rejecting the impleadment application is recalled and impleadment application is restored to its original number. Order Date :- 20.11.2009 T.S. On Impleadment Application No.58495/08 Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. With the consent of the parties, impleadment application has been taken up. Requiest has come forward on behalf of the applicant M/s Digitam Properties and Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for impleadment as respondent no. 17 in the array of the parties. Present second appeal has been filed by Noida Authority, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gautambudh Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1996 as well as judgment dated 30.3.1996 passed by the Civil Judge-I Ghaziabad in Original Suit No. 892 of 1989. Suit in question has been filed by Hargu Lal for permanent injunction against Noida Authority and therein permanent injunction has been accorded and same has been affirmed in Appeal. Applicant claims that plaintiff/respondent no.11 Sukhpal (since deceased) had by way of an agreement to sell dated 20.12.2006 agreed to sell freehold residential land area of Khasra Nos. 127,128,129,130,01 measuring 21.110 sq. yards (i.e. 17,647.96 sq. meters) old abadi, situated in village Nangla Charan Das, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar to (1) S/Sri Deena Nath Pandey, son of Paras Nath Pandey, resident of D-7, Sector-A-2, Tronica City, Ghaziabad, (2) Mukesh Gupta, son of H.L. Gupta, resident of 30, Harsh Vihar, Delhi,(3) Ram Kumar Tyagi, s/o Indrajeet Singh, R/0 village Mandoola, district Ghaziabad and (4) Vinod Kumar son of Bhopal Singh, Resident of 6/69, Rajendra Nagar, Ghaziabad. It has been stated that Smt. Kishna Devi, wife of Sukhpal

and Ram Bir Singh, Raj Bir Singhand Vijay Pal Singh, all sons of Sukhpal are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff-respondent no. 11.Ram Bir Singh holding general power ofattorney of his mother Smt. Kishna Devi andtwo brothers Raj Bir Singhand Vijay Pal Singh as well as the aforementioned Deena Nath Pandey, Mukesh Gupta, Ram Kumar Tyagi, and Vinod Kumar, who claim to bethe lawful owners and in possesssion of the residential land area mentioned in the preceedingparagraph, have vide an agreement to sell dated 28.9.2007 executed at Noida, agreed to sell the said property to the applicant for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,50,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Crores and Fifty Lacs) only and the applicant has agreed to purchase the same for this very amount. Applicant claims that he has paid Rs.3,50,00,000/as advance which has been received and accepted by the aforementioned parties i.e.e the vendors, and balance amount is to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Applicant has contended that vendors have played fraud and have not disclosed that it was subject matter of dispute. It was mentioned that legal heirs will not contest the present second appeal, in this background applicant may also be impleaded. From the own showning of the applicant, rights are being claimed on the basis of the agreement to sale and it is not at all case of the applicant that they have filed any suit for specific performance for crystilization of their rights. Impleadment application has been sought merely on the basis of apprehension that plaintiff of the appeal will not contest the matter and interest of the applicant will be jeopridised. As rights of the parties have not yet been crystilized on mere apprehension, no one can be impleaded as party. Doctrine of lis pendens is clear under Section 52 of Transfer of Properties Act wherein it has been provided that transfer of property always in on going proceedings, shall abide by an out come of aforementioned proceedings. In view of this, as at this stage, impleadment application has been rejected, it is made clear that proceeding of second appeal shall have the effect in term of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. Consequently, impleadment application is rejected. Order Date :- 20.11.2009 T.S.