IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 4006 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: Adapala Kalpana Jyoti, W/o. Srinviasa Rao, R/o. GF3, Ratna Towers, 181, Arundelpet, Guntur 522001 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Duggirala Venkata Jayadev, S/o. Late Kutumba Rao, R/o. 9-2-4, Duggiralavari St., Railpet, Guntur. 2 Syed Hassan Shameem, S/o. Syed Mohammad, R/o. 9-1-51/2, Simla Tea Centre, 1st Lane Railpet, Guntur. 3 Duggirala Chandresekhar, S/o. Late Kutumba Rao, R/o. 8-12, Prasadampadu Near. Saibaba Temple, Vijayawada. 4 Sistla Durga @ Venkata Durga W/o. Bharathanand, R/o. 14, Road No. 12, Gruhatara Colony, Kaukoor, Secunderabad. 5 Kuchibatla Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Balakrishna Sastry, R/o. 25-40-13/2/1, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.N.S.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4006 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is the third party who filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order, rejecting the application filed by him in I.A.No.307 of 2009 in O.S.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to come on record in the suit. The said application is dismissed on the ground that the purchase in question appears to have taken place in the month of February, 2009, i.e. during the pendency of the suit and other litigations in various courts, which amounts to subjudice. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision of this Court in V. Narayana Reddy V. Smt. Ani Narayanan and another[1], wherein this Court has taken a view that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties, such parties can be impleaded in the suit. However, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case on hand. On consideration of the submissions, especially with regard to the finding of the Court below that there are no bona fides and the petitioner’s purchase was only in February, 2009 which is affected by the principle of lis pendens, I do not find any merits warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 28.08.2009 MD/TSY [1] 2009 (4) ALT 9