C.R. No. 235 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 235 of 2010 Date of Decision : 15.1.2010 Gagandeep Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Prabhu Ram & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2009, passed by the learned executing Court, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner, against the execution of the decree for specific performance stands declined. The suit filed by the plaintiff decree-holder was decreed by the Court, and the time was extended for deposit of the balance sale consideration, on an application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order extending the time of deposit was not challenged before any higher Court. The petitioner filed objections claiming to be the owner in possession, in pursuance to the transfer made by the judgment debtor, and claimed that the decree cannot be executed against him. The learned executing Court rightly held that this transfer in favour of JD No.2, who was 53 days old at the time of transfer, was in fact C.R. No. 235 of 2010 2 only to defeat the right of the decree-holder in getting the decree executed. It is well settled law that transfer made during the pendency of suit is hit by the principle of lis pendens, that is the reason why the petitioner chose to file objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming himself to be the third party. In view of extension of time to deposit the money, the decree- holder has right to get the decree executed. No ground for interference is made out against the impugned order as transferee lis pendens is bound by the decree. Dismissed. No costs. 15.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE