1. This revision is preferred by the proposed party, who sought impleadment in a suit, being O.S.No.38 of 2006, for partition, as defendant No.24 vide I.A.No.1161 of 2010, which was rejected by the Court below, under order dated 17.02.2011, on the ground that the transaction in his favour is hit by lis pendens and his interest is already covered by the stand taken by vendor, hence, he is not a necessary party to the suit. That order is questioned in this revision.

2. I have heard Mr. S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 20 to 25 and other learned counsel representing other respondents.

3. The necessary facts are that respondents 1 to 8 herein are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit for partition and the other contesting defendants with whom the plaintiffs claim equal share. Some of the purchasers from the parties are already impleaded in the suit, as defendants 1 to 22. The petitioner herein claims that he purchased Ac.0.60 cents of land in Sy.No.908/1A/2A/1 on 26.09.2007 from one Salam Bala Subba Reddy. It is stated in the affidavit that the father of the petitioner’s vendor had earlier purchased the su