1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether or not on the 6th of April when the land in question was sold by the second defendant to the first defendant there was a suit pending go as to introduce the operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the register it appears that the plaint was actually registered under Order IV, Rule 2, as if it had been admitted on the 9th April, It is not clear what occurred in connection with the in sufficiency of the Court-fee, but if the Munsif returned the plaint actually to the plaintiff and then allowed him five days within which to present it again with the additional Court fee, such order does not appear to be strictly in accordance with Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances, we accept what we find in the register of suits. In consequence, there was no lis pendens on the date that is the 6th of April. In the circumstances, we reverse the judgment of the learned Judge. The learned Judge has not come to any findings on the other points in the case with reference to the nature of the right claimed or whether the transfer was without notice and we remand the case to the learned District Judge for him to some to findings on those points. Costs of this appeal to abide the result.