Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants had filed an appeal as well as application under Section 96 read with 151 CPC for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are bona fide purchasers. They had purchased the rights of the khatedar by way of sale deed dated 31.12.2014. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.03.2007 and permanent injunction against the respondent No.2-Ramkaran (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) in the year 2008 in which plaintiff had clearly stated that as per the agreement, possession of the disputed land was handed over to him and registry of the suit property was to be done. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that after service notice on defendant No.1, he did not attend the court, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him and suit was decreed vide order dated 04.08.2011 in favour of plaintiff. After that, defendant No.1-Ramkaran had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 before the trial court which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 27.01.2016 and ex-parte decree was set aside. After that, defendant No.1-Ramkaran filed reply in which he stated that he had sold the disputed land to respondent No.3-Hasti Devi (for short ‘the defendant No.2’) vide sale deed dated 04.10.2007. After that, plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the trial court for impleading the defendant No.2 as a party
