THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5406 of 2009 Dated: 13-11-2009 Between:- Vaka Venkateshwarlu and others. ..Petitioners. And Poruri Janardhana Madhava Rao and others Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5406 of 2009 Oral Order: The revision petitioners in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed I.A.No. 86 of 2009 in O.S.No. 15 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandkur, seeking to be impleaded as defendant Nos. 9 to 14 in the suit. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein filed the suit seeking declaration of their title to the suit schedule property. The revision petitioners claimed to have entered into an agreement of sale with the 15th respondent (in the interlocutory application) for purchase of the suit schedule lands prior to 1999; to have got issued a public notice 27-05-1999 in Telugu vernacular daily soliciting objections to their obtaining sale deeds from the vendor; and to have obtained registered sale deeds dated 30-03-2000. It would appear that the petitioners’ vendor – the respondent No.15 in the interlocutory application – was set ex-parte in the suit and is making efforts for restoration of his defense thereat. I.A.No. 86 of 2009 instituted by the petitioners for their impleadment as defendants in the suit was dismissed by the Court below by the order dated 05-11- 2009, impugned herein. The Court below held that though the suit was originally instituted on 24-02-2000, the same was returned with certain objections for registration and was eventually registered on 28-04-2000. As the revision petitioners/petitioners in the interlocutory application, claim to have purchased the suit schedule property from 15th respondent under registered sale deeds dated 30-03-2000, after the presentation of the plaint in the suit and in view of the provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, the petitioners claim title to the suit schedule properties is governed by the principles of lis pendens. In support of the above conclusion, the Court below referred to the provisions of Section 52 of the T.P. Act and the judgment of this Court in Pannala Renuka and another v. Kavali (Rajumouni) Venkataiah and others (2006 (6) ALD 761) as to the application of doctrine of lis pendens. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the Court below warranting interference in this revision. There are no merits. The revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 13-11-2009 pvks