https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470815 Subsequent purchasers pendente lite may seek leave to appeal against a specific-performance decree only by showing that the decree binds, aggrieves or prejudicially affects them and that judicial discretion should be exercised in their favour. Rejection of an impleadment application does not itself bar leave to appeal, but neither impleadment nor leave is available as of right. A transfer during litigation remains valid but subordinate to the rights determined in the suit. Purchasers who knew of the proceedings, acquired property despite an operative injunction, and failed to act diligently lacked sufficient cause for substantial delay and a good case for appellate leave. Their remedy may lie independently against the vendor for sale-consideration recovery. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Aug 2026 21:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470815 Subsequent purchasers pendente lite may seek leave to appeal against a specific-performance decree only by showing that the decree binds, aggrieves or prejudicially affects them and that judicial discretion should be exercised in their favour. Rejection of an impleadment application does not itself bar leave to appeal, but neither impleadment nor leave is available as of right. A transfer during litigation remains valid but subordinate to the rights determined in the suit. Purchasers who knew of the proceedings, acquired property despite an operative injunction, and failed to act diligently lacked sufficient cause for substantial delay and a good case for appellate leave. Their remedy may lie independently against the vendor for sale-consideration recovery. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470815