C. R. No. 2873 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2873 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 03, 2010 Rajinder Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. Randhir and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by Rajinder Singh and Ramesh Chand, whose objections filed in the execution petition have been dismissed by learned Executing Court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, vide order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P-3). Vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, suit filed by respondents no.1 to 4 herein was decreed and in addition to the other reliefs, relief of possession of the suit land was also granted. The petitioners herein filed objections in the execution petition filed by the decree-holders. The petitioners herein alleged that they have C. R. No. 2873 of 2010 2 purchased the disputed land vide registered sale deed dated 07.04.2005 for Rs.7,20,000/- and they are bona fide purchasers of the suit land for valuable consideration and pendency of the suit, in which the decree sought to be executed was passed, was never disclosed to the objectors. The said objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court. Feeling aggrieved, the objectors have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Pohlo Ram Sharma and others vs. Narinder Singh Randhawa and others reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 442, contended that objections preferred by the petitioners could not have been dismissed by the Executing Court without framing issues and recording evidence. The contention is completely misconceived and untenable. In the case of Pohlo Ram Sharma (supra), it was held that objections preferred by third party have to be decided after framing issues and recording evidence. In the instant case, however, the petitioners cannot be said to be third party because admittedly, they are purchasers pendente lite. The suit, in which the decree to be executed was passed, was instituted on 17.11.1997 and decided on 07.01.2008 and it was during the pendency of the said suit that the petitioners claimed to have purchased the suit land vide sale deed C. R. No. 2873 of 2010 3 dated 07.04.2005. Consequently, the petitioners being purchasers pendente lite cannot be said to be third party to the suit. The petitioners are, therefore, bound by the judgment and decree passed in the suit and sale in their favour is hit by doctrine of lis pendens. In this view of the matter, neither issues were required to be framed nor evidence was required to be recorded because in view of admitted facts, the objections filed by the petitioners are completely meritless and misconceived. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the executing court. The revision petition is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 03, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE