THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5148 OF 2010 DATED:25.03.2011 Between: Kandra Mohan Rao & 2 others. .... PETITIONERS And M/s Vijayalakshmi Contructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Proprietor, Vijayawada & 3 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.10.2010, in I.A.No.820 of 2010 in O.S.No.181 of 2009 on the file of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein-plaintiffs for impleadment of the 8th respondent herein (proposed 8th defendant), was dismissed on the ground that batta is not filed for the proposed party and also that the rule of lis pendens applies in respect of the alleged alienation in favour of the proposed 8th defendant . 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners herein filed the suit for cancellation of partition deed, dated 04.10.2007, and a development agreement, dated 08.10.2007. Originally the suit was filed against the defendants 1 to 7 and they filed written statement contesting the suit. When the matter was coming up for trial, petitioner filed I.A.No.820 of 2007 seeking to implead the 8th respondent herein as 8th defendant on the ground that she purchased the suit schedule property, which is the subject-matter of the suit, under registered sale deed, dated 15.04.2010, during the pendency of the suit and the said document is not binding on the plaintiffs. Notice was not served on the proposed party as the batta was not filed. The other defendants on record filed their counter opposing the application. The trial Court by the impugned order, which is very cryptic in nature, while noting that batta was not filed for the proposed party also observed that the alleged alienation is hit by rule of lis pendens. Thus, the said application came to be dismissed even before the proposed party could be served with notice and even before she could raise her contention. Inasmuch as the petition was primarily dismissed for non-payment of batta, it is considered a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioners-plaintiffs to effect service of notice on the proposed party and thereafter, the trial Court shall dispose of the application afresh on merits. The matter is therefore remanded to the trial Court permitting the petitioner to pay batta for the proposed 8th defendant. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 4. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 25th March, 2011. Tsy