IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3926 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5th July, 2011 Surender Singh … Petitioner Versus Ram Parshad and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Smt.Chunia and Bhup Singh are the children of Todar. Babu son of Bhup Singh had obtained a Civil Court decree in suit No.113/1988 decided on 10th February, 1988 vide which the suit property belonging to Chunia was transferred in favour of Babu. Chunia filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying that she was impersonated and the decree passed in the civil suit No.113/1988 be set aside. The suit of Chunia was accepted and the decree dated 10th February, 1988 was set aside vide judgment and decree (Annexure P-1) dated 7th February, 1996. After Chunia had obtained the decree and became owner of the property, Babu transferred the suit property vide a sale deed dated 2nd February, 1997 in favour of the petitioner-Surender Singh. 1/4th share of the suit land was leased out to the wife of petitioner. It is recorded in the impugned order that wife of the petitioner was proceeded-against ex-parte and only the objections filed by the present petitioner were decided. The Executing Court took into consideration the fact that the decree dated 7th February, 1996 attained finality after the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 26th July, 2003. The sale Civil Revision No.3926 of 2011 (O&M) deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 2nd April, 1997. As per the decree dated 7th February, 1996 no right vested in Babu who had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The Executing Court has rightly observed as under: “8. … … … It is well settled law that a purchaser pendens lite has no right to obstruct execution of decree-lis pendens itself is treated a constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit. Reliance in this regard may be placed on case law titled Usha Sinha Versus Dina Ramand others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil), 145 (SC).” Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that in a separate suit instituted an application has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 7th February, 1996 vide which the decree-holder has been restrained to alienate the suit property. Therefore, it is prayed that present objections should have been accepted and dispossession of the petitioner should have been stayed. The dispute between the parties cannot be decided by the Executing Court. It has only to give effect to the decree. So long as the decree dated 7th February, 1996 stands, no right flows to the petitioner. Hence, the objections have rightly been dismissed. No interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 5, 2011 rps 2