THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3358 of 2007 Oral order: This revision is directed against the order dated 2-7-2007 of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No. 153 of 2007 in O.S.No. 2102 of 2004. The application was filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the 3rd respondent herein as the 3rd defendant in the suit; and to amend the plaint and for consequential amendments. The revision petitioner had filed the suit for a declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. According to the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 153 of 2007 the interim application filed in the suit for interim injunction has not yet been disposed of and is pending. In I.A.No. 153 of 2007 it is vaguely pleaded that the suit schedule property was alienated by the defendants 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2 herein) in favour of one Hanumayamma and thereafter by Hanumayamma in favour of others and eventually was alienated in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant. In the circumstances, I.A.No. 153 of 2007 was filed for amendment of the plaint; for incorporating the name of the proposed defendant in the cause title; to incorporate the description of the proposed defendant; to plead the pendente lite alienation of the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant through a series of intermediary alienations; and for amendment to seek the relief of cancellation of the sale deed executed by Hanumayamma in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant. By the order impugned, the application was dismissed by recording a finding that except a bald allegation that one Boggavarapu Venkata Nagendra Prasad had purchased the plaint schedule property and sold the same to Hanumayamma under a registered sale deed, no other particulars are furnished, no pleading is there in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 153 of 2007 to disclose the chronology of transactions of alienation by which the property came to be alienated in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant nor even particulars relating to the registration, the date of registration or the particulars of the registered sale deed allegedly executed in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant, are pleaded. The Court below rejected I.A.No. 153 of 2007 on the ground that the pleadings in support of this application are vague, unspecific and bald. On a careful perusal of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 153 of 2007 this Court finds no error in the conclusion of the court below that the application is devoid of even the minimum particulars. There being no error in the order of the court below, there is no merits in the revision, either. The revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 24th June, 2010. GRR