1 WP5742&6132-11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5742/2011 (RAMESHKUMAR P. CHANDAK VERSUS NITIN G. CHANDEL & ANOTHER) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6132/2011 (CHANDANLAL RADHELAL BARVE VERSUS NITIN GANGUSINGH CHANDEL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.R. Mundra, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 21 , 2011 . Since the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the order passed by the Executing Court on 28.07.2011 on an objection filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5742/2011 is the purchaser, who had purchased the property from the Judgment Debtor, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6132/2011, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court. A suit filed by the respondent-Nitin Chandel for specific performance of contract against Chandanlal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6132/2011, was decreed and the respondent no.1 sought the execution of that decree. In the said execution proceedings, an objection was filed by Judgment Debtor Chandanlal and the subsequent purchaser Rameshkumar challenging the execution proceedings on the ground that the decree could not be executed against Ramesh 2 WP5742&6132-11 Kumar as he was a bona fide purchaser of the property without notice of the proceedings instituted by plaintiff-Nitin against vendor Chandanlal. The Executing Court, however, by the impugned order dated 28.07.2011, rejected the applications and held that decree holder Nitin was entitled to get the sale-deed executed in his favour. After considering the evidence tendered by the parties, the Executing Court came to a conclusion that Rameshkumar failed to prove that because he was not a party to the decree for specific performance of contract, the decree could not have been executed against him. The Executing Court held that Chandanlal failed to prove that the decree was unexecutable or a nullity. The Executing Court, on an appreciation of the various reported cases, held that the decree holder was entitled to seek the execution of the decree for specific performance of contract. The Court held that the Judgment Debtor, Chandanlal had least respect for the decree of the Court and with a view to bypass the execution, had executed the sale-deed in favour of Ramesh Kumar. The Court went on to add that not only Chandanlal, but Rameshkumar was also bound by the decree. The judgment reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 277 (Abdul Salam s/o Sheikh Rahim (died) through LRs. Salma Begum w/o Abdul Salam & others Versus Sheikh Mehboob s/o Sheikh Amir & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in the facts of the reported case, the subsequent purchaser had, not only proved that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit property but, had proved that before purchasing the property, he had made full inquiries about the suit house from the vendor and when he 3 WP5742&6132-11 was fully satisfied that no prior agreement of sale was subsisting between the vendor and the other person, he purchased the house in his name. Such is not the case here. The evidence of Rameshkumar is silent in this regard. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. In the result, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE