Civil Revision No. 6043 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6043 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.4.2011 *** Kuldeep Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Joga Singh & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the suit land qua which a decree for specific performance has been passed. During the course of execution of the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed objections taking the plea that they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and without notice of any such dispute. After the contest, the Court below vide impugned order dated 7.9.2010 dismissed their objections and the sale in their favour was held to be hit by the principle of lis pendens. Hence, this revision petition. Heard. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that “during the pendency of any suit or proceedings, which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any othre party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose. In the explanation, it is provided that for the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the Civil Revision No. 6043 of 2010 2 presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.” Meaning thereby, the aforesaid Section comes into existence from the point of institution of the suit and continues to survive till the satisfaction of the decree. Adverting to the facts of present case, it is evident from the impugned order that the civil suit was filed by the plaintiff on 5.11.1998 seeking performance of agreement to sell dated 6.8.1998. The said suit though was dismissed on 18.2.2002, but was allowed by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.8.2005. The appeal filed by the defendant was even dismissed by this Court. It is own case of the petitioners that they purchased the suit property vide registered sale deeds dated 2.12.2002 and 17.12.2003. It is settled that an appeal is continuity of the suit and hence any transaction carried out during the pendency of the suit is hit by principle of lis pendens, as rightly observed by the Court below while dismissing the objections of the petitioner. So far as contention that the Court below has not followed due procedure while disposing of the objections as no issues were framed, is concerned, since it has since been held that the petitioners were transferee pendente lite and the sale in their favour is hit by lis pendens, therefore, there was no necessity for the executing Court below to frame the issue and then to decide the objections. There is no merit in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 20, 2011 Jiten