Judgment :- Third parties who wanted to get themselves impleaded in E.P. 72 of 1992 in O.S. 103 of 1989 on the file of Sub Judge, Arani, and whose application was dismissed are the revision petitioners. 2. Second respondent in this revision petition filed the, suit O.S. 103 of 1989 against third respondent and pursuant to the decree dated 4.8.1992, property belonging to third respondent was brought to sale, and the sale was held on 18.8.1997. First respondent became the auction purchaser and the sale was confirmed on 28.10.1997. Executing court directed to issue sale certificate and pursuant to the same auction purchaser filed petition to get possession of the property. 3. At that time, petitioners herein filed E.A. 41 of 1998 to get themselves impleaded on the allegation that third respondent had already executed agreement for sale in favour of petitioners and their father Saranga Mudaliar in respect of 9-/2 acres of land empowering them to sell them in various plots and also executed a power of attorney in their favour. It is said that on the basis of power of attorney they have obtained agency with interest. They wanted to get themselves impleaded in the execution petition filed by first respondent. 4. The application was seriously opposed by first respondent on the ground that he has obtained right, title and interest and petitioners are not to be impleaded in execution petition. According to him agreement for sale or power of attorney will not create any interest in land at any rate when the sale has been confirmed in his favour and sale certificate is issued, that right cannot be taken away by persons who claim under Judgment debtor. 5. After hearing both sides, lower court dismissed the application. The same is challenged in this revision petition. 6. The facts stated above are sufficient to hold that petitioners have no right to get themselves impleaded in the execution petition filed by first respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even before attachment was ordered in the suit, portion, of property was purchased by third parties. If that contention was accepted, it goes without saying that they are not going to be affected, by the sale. Hence purchasers will not be necessary parties. 7. So far as petitioners are concerned, they claim only right of agreement for sale and power of attorney. If that contention was accepted, it goes without saying that they are not going to be affected, by the sale. Hence purchasers will not be necessary parties. 7. So far as petitioners are concerned, they claim only right of agreement for sale and power of attorney. It is argued by learned counsel that they have already filed a suit to restrain third respondent from alienating property and the court sale was conducted violating orders of injunction. I do not find any merit in the said submission. Third respondent did not alienate the property. Though principle of lis pendens is applied to courts also that principle also cannot be applied here for the purpose of impleading the petitioners. Petitioners have not obtained any right from Judgment debtor except for agreement for sale which does not create any right in them. Suit filed by them also is not for specific performance but only for injunction restraining third respondent from alienating property for ever. Such a suit itself is not maintainable. Lower court also found that if petitioners have right as alleged by them, the remedy lies when the property was attached in the year 1992 and till date they have not taken any steps to agitate the same.