IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3037 of 2004 Date of Order: 15.10.2009 Hari Singh .....Petitioner Versus Vijender Singh and Another .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA. Present: Mr.Babbar Bhan Advocate Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** SABINA, J.(Oral) Vijender Singh had filed an execution petition praying that warrant of possession with regard to the house in question owned and possessed by the objector be issued. Hari Singh and others filed objection petition in the execution proceedings. Vide the impugned order dated 25.05.2004, the executing court dismissed the objection petitions filed by Hari Singh and Anupam Singh. Hence, the present revision petition by Hari Singh. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The case of Hari Singh and Anupam Singh is that they were bonafide purchaser for consideration. However, admittedly the petitioners had purchased the property in dispute during the pendency of the litigation. In these circumstances, the objectors had no better right than their vendor. The plea of bonafide purchaser is not available to the objectors who had purchased the property in question during the pendency of the litigation. Civil Revision No. 3037 of 2004 ..2.. Since the question involved was purely legal and the sale in favour of the objectors was hit by the principle of lis pendence, the objection petition was rightly disposed of without framing any issues by the executing court. Hence the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality which would warrant interference by this court in revision. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 15.10.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge