Civil Revision No.6166 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. Nos.25027-28-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.6166 of 2009 Date of decision:27th October, 2009 Ram Niwas ......Petitioner Versus Anil Kumar and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No. 25027-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No. 25028-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures-P/1 and P/2 are taken on record. Civil Revision No. 6166 of 2009 The petitioner challenges an order dated 27.08.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissing his objections. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased 1 marla of the suit land, vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.1995. The petitioner being a bonafide purchaser, his objections could not have been dismissed summarily, without framing issues and the grant of an opportunity to lead evidence. Civil Revision No.6166 of 2009 2 I have heard counsel for the petitioner, and appraised the order passed by the executing Court. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 23.08.1995, whereas the petitioner purchased 1 marla of the suit property on 23.09.1995, As a result, the objections filed by the petitioner, who is a vendee pendente lite are not maintainable. Order 21 Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contains a statutory bar to a vendee pendente lite, filing objections. As admittedly, the petitioner is a vendee pendente lite, his objections were not maintainable and were therefore, rightly dismissed. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 27th October, 2009 Shivani Kaushik