C.R. No. 49 of 2010 20.5.2010 Present:- Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr.Vinod Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. This is a petition against the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karsog, in Execution Petition No.4-X/2007 dismissing the objections of the petitioner. In the objections, the petitioner has submitted that in the year 2003 the objector hired the house in dispute from Khub Raj and since then the objector is in possession of the house in dispute and Satinder Kumar judgment debtor has nothing to do about the occupation of the premises in dispute. In the objections, it has not been stated how Khub Raj is connected with the premises in dispute. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no opportunity was given to the objector to substantiate his objections and, therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. It appears that at the time of consideration of the objections on 3.5.2010 a submission was made before the learned Civil Judge that Satinder Kumar, original defendant handed over the suit property to Khub Raj during the pendency of litigation and Khub Raj on his part rented out the same to Virender Kumar objector. 3. The objector in the objections has stated nothing in what capacity Khub Raj had given the premises in dispute to him in the year 2003. There is no foundation in the objections as to what authority Khub Raj had to give the premises in question to objector. - 2 - In the absence of foundation the evidence cannot be led by the objector to substantiate the objections. As noticed above, before the Executing Court a stand was taken that Satinder Kumar handed over the possession of the suit property to Khub Raj in the year 2003 and thereafter Khub Raj during the pendency of the litigation rented out the premises in dispute to the objector. On this ground also, the objections are not maintainable inasmuch as even if it is taken that Satinder Kumar had handed over the premises to Khub Raj during the pendency of the suit and Khub Raj then gave the possession to objector, then handing over of possession by Satinder to Khub Raj and by Khub Raj to objector is hit by principle of lis-pendence. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. May 20, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.