THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4970 of 2009 FRIDAY THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Between:- KaranamSrinivasa Babu ..Petitioner And Daggupati Malleswara Rao and another. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.NO. 4970 OF 2009 Oral Order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15-09-2009 of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge’s Court, Ongole in rejecting I.A.No. 192 of 2009 in O.S.No. 41 of 2006. The said application was filed seeking impleadment of the 2nd respondent as the defendant in the suit under Order-I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The revision petitioner had filed O.S.No. 41 of 2006 for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 12-01-2005 purportedly executed by the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent had filed a debtor’s insolvency petition – I.P.No. 40 of 2004 – on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. The 1st respondent was adjudged and declared as an insolvent on 23-03-2008 in I.P.No. 40 of 2004 and his properties including the property which is the substratum of the suit agreement of sale in O.S.No. 41 of 2006 is vested in the Official Receiver, the 2nd respondent herein. It requires to be noticed that the revision petitioner had filed an application impleadment as a party to the proceedings in I.P.No. 40 of 2004. That application missed on merits on the ground that the revision petitioner was not a creditor and could not participate in the insolvency proceedings. The petitioner preferred no gainst the rejection of his application for impleadment and that order has become The revision petitioner moved I.A.No. 192 of 2009 seeking to implead the Official Receiver (in I.P.No. 40 of 2004) as a defendant in the suit filed for specific performance. The Court below rightly rejected the application on the ground that the Official Receiver is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings, as the suit agreement of sale was brought into existence during the pendency of I.P.No. 40 of 2004 and is therefore hit by doctrine of lis pendens in view of the provisions of Section 28 (7) of the Insolvency Act. The properties of insolvent are legislatively enjoined to have vested in the Official Receiver from the date of presentation of the petition i.e., in 2004. This Court discerns no infirmity in the analysis of the relevant legal principles or error in the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting revisional interference under Article 227of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 30-10-2009 Pvks/*