Meera Chauhan vs Harsh Bishnoi & Anr

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's purchase of the suit property from respondent No.2 was valid despite the ongoing litigation, as there was no proof of service of the interim injunction order against respondent No.2. The Court emphasized that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, a person dispossessed during the pendency of a suit can seek restoration of possession, but the lack of notice to the appellant regarding the injunction rendered the sale valid. The Court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the appellant's impleadment in the ongoing suit, affirming the principle that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is protected under law.