CIVIL REVISION NO.4290 OF 2004 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 05, 2008 Shangara Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Jagdish Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The objections filed by the petitioner before the Executing Court were dismissed vide an order dated 23.8.2004, which is impugned by him through the present revision petition. The objections were filed in an execution of a decree dated 21.7.1997 passed in suit No.114 dated 26.4.1994. The decree was passed in a suit titled Bakshi Singh Vs. Phuman Singh, praying for injunction restraining defendant Phuman Singh and Jarnail Singh from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. Judgment Debtors Phuman Singh and Jarnail Singh preferred appeal against the same, CIVIL REVISION NO.4290 OF 2004 :{ 2 }: which was also dismissed. In the execution proceedings, Mohinder Singh son of Basant Singh filed an objection that he has purchased the land measuring 4 kanals through a sale deed executed by Judgment Debtor Phuman Singh. Claiming himself to be a bonafide purchaser, he stated that he is not bound by the decree as he had purchased the land after making due enquiries when no entry in regard to any decree or exchange was recorded in the revenue records. The objections were contested and it is pointed out that the sale dated 2.9.1998 was executed during the pendency of the civil litigation and, thus, is hit by doctrine of lis-pendens. It is urged that the objections are filed to just delay the execution. One Shangara Singh also filed objections claiming himself to be owner in possession, having purchased the land through a sale deed dated 10.7.1967. He has further alleged that decree holder, Bakshi Singh never exchanged land with Phuman Singh and even if it was so exchanged it was not binding qua his rights. While reply to the objections filed by Shangara Singh, decree holder points out that objector Shangara Singh, had earlier filed a similar Suit No.78 dated 17.3.1999 in which the judgment and decree under execution was challenged on similar grounds. This suit was compromised and Shangara Singh made a statement that he did not wish to proceed with the suit which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn on 26.11.2000. It is, thus, submitted that objector Shangara Singh is estopped from filing the objection petition due to his conduct. It is stated that the instant objection petition is filed in connivance with the judgment debtor who is real brother of the CIVIL REVISION NO.4290 OF 2004 :{ 3 }: objector and these objections by Shangara Singh are barred under the provisions of Section 11 of C.P.C. as also under Order 23 and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to various judgments, says that objections by stranger are also required to be adjudicated and he can get his claim decided even prior to loosing possession to the decree holder. In this regard, the counsel has referred to Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, AIR 1997 SC 856 and Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh and others , AIR 1998 SC 1827. The counsel then refers to Tanzeem-e-Sufia Vs. Bibi Haliman and others, AIR 2002 SC 3083 to say that refusing hearing on the ground that the objector has filed a civil suit or that he should file objections under Order 21 Rule 99 is not proper. The facts in the instant case are of its own kind and the law laid down in the judgments may not strictly apply to the facts of the present case. It is rightly observed by the Executing Court that the rule of lis-pendens can not be ignored. All the parties, who happen to have a right in the disputed property, are to be governed by doctrine of lis-pendens. Whosoever purchases a property during the pendency of the matter in a lis is bound by the judgment that will be made against the person from whom he derives the title. Such a purchaser may not be a party to the civil litigation and may not have any notice in this regard. Objector Shangara Singh can not be heard at this stage especially in view of the fact that he had earlier filed a suit, as already noticed, which was dismissed as withdrawn without any permission to file a fresh suit on similar grounds. Petitioner CIVIL REVISION NO.4290 OF 2004 :{ 4 }: Shangara Singh has alleged some fraud in withdrawal of the suit, which appears to be far-fetched. Prayer by Shangara Singh that his objections could not have been summarily rejected without following procedure can not be accepted. It has rightly been noticed by the trial Court that objections filed by Shangara Singh would be barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC and also under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. His relationship with the judgment debtor being his brother would also give an indication of real purpose behind filing of the objection petition. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 05 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE