IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.79 of 2009 1. Prof Ram Kumar Singh 2. Dr. Krishana Kumar Singh, Both sons of late Madan Mohan Prasad Singh 3. Smt Swapna Choudhary, wife of Prof Ram Kumar Singh 4. Dr. Kamini Rai, wife of Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh, all residents of Mohalla Kachahari Road, Begusarai, P.S. and District Begusarai……………….Interveners-Petitioners-Petitioners. Versus 1. Shibal Mahto 2. Narayan Mahto, both sons of late Sita Ram Mahto, All resident of Pokharia Mungeriganj, Begusarai, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai. ……Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants- Opposite party 1st set 3. Krishna Devi wife of late Shib Pujan Singh 4. Subodh Kumar son of late Shib Pujan Singh 5. Santosh Kumar minor son of late Shib Pujan Singh, minor under the guardianship of his mother and represented through her. 6. Pappi Kumari 7. Sunita Kumari, both daughters of Shib Pujan Singh, all resident of Mohalla Mungeriganj, Begusarai, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai. …….Defendants 1st party-Respondents- Opposite party 2nd set 8. Murari Prasad Sinha 9. Gopi Prasad Sinha, both sons of late Radha Ballabh Prasad, both resident of Kachahari Chowk, Near Police Fari, Prasad X-ray Clinic, Jamui, P.S. Jamui, District Jamui. 10.Narendra Kumar Sinha, son of late Shib Shankar Prasad, resident of Mohalla Mungeriganj, Begusarai, District Begusarai. . …..Defendant 2nd set-Respondents- Respondents-Opposite party 3rd set. 11.Ajay Kumar Sinha, son of late Nand Kumar Singh resident of Mohalla Mungeriganj, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai. …….Defendant 3rd party-Respondent-Respondent- Opposite party4th set. For the petitioners : M/s Bhupendra Narain Sinha and Shailendra Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. 2 ----------- 05/ 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed by the review petitioners, who were interveners in S.A. No.193 of 2001 and their intervention petition bearing I.A. No.3833 of 2008 filed in the aforesaid second appeal was rejected by the impugned order dated 13.02.2009. The aforesaid second appeal was filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of both the learned courts below, which were in favour of the respondents and by which the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants regarding their alleged title, possession, etc. was rejected. 3. It transpires that during the pendency of the aforesaid second appeal review petitioners filed an intervention petition bearing I.A. No.3833 of 2008 in the aforesaid second appeal for adding them as party respondents on the basis of their purchases from respondent no.8 and his wife. However, no copy of the sale deeds was annexed to the said interlocutory application. 4. The said interlocutory application bearing I.A.No.3833 of 2008 was considered in S.A. No.193 of 2001 on 13.02.2009 and was rejected as follows: “ I.A. no.3833 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of Professor Ram Kumar Singh, Dr Krishna Kumar Singh, Smt Swapna Choudhary and Dr. Kamini Singh for adding them as parties-respondent in the instant appeal. It transpires that the said applicants are vendees of respondent no.8 during the pendency of the case in the court below without any permission from the court below. In the said circumstances the claim of the intervener would be covered by the principle of lis pendence under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3 Accordingly I.A. no.3833 of 2008 is dismissed.” 5. The aforesaid order is sought to be reviewed in the instant case on the ground of the said order was passed on the presumption that the sale deeds, in favour of the applicants, were executed during the pendency of the title appeal in the court below, but in fact the title appeal was decided on 28.09.2000 and S.A. No.193 of 2001 was filed on 12.07.2001 and much thereafter on 15.10.2001, 16.10.2001 and 22.10.2001 three sale deeds were executed by respondent no.8 and his wife in favour of the applicants during the pendency of the second appeal and not during the pendency of the title appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioners appears to be correct as the said sale deeds were executed during the pendency of the second appeal and not during the title appeal, hence the said fact need to be corrected, but that will not affect the import of the said order because the said sale deeds having been executed during the pendency of the second appeal the claim of the purchasers-interveners- applicants would even then be definitely covered by the principles of lis-pendence under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. In the said facts and circumstances this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record, which could render the said order illegal nor does it find any fresh material which was not available earlier, to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )