1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1291 OF 2011 (Sau. Sandhya M. Madke vs. Sau. Archana N. More and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri N.B. Bargat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent no.1. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 8 , 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 8/2/2011 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur whereby the objection filed by the petitioner to the execution of the decree came to be rejected. The petitioner herein claims to have entered into an agreement of sale with one Parvatabai Mahadeo Bhalsagar. The said agreement is dated 5/3/2008. The said Parvatabai was the mother of the respondents herein. An objection was taken by the petitioner to the execution of the decree 2 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 802/2006, which was decided on 7/8/2007 on the ground that she agreed to purchase the entire property by the said agreement of sale. The said objection of the petitioner came to be rejected for two-fold reasons, firstly the alleged vendor of the petitioner died on 11/2/1987 and, it is, therefore, inconceivable that she could have entered into an agreement on 5/3/2008 and secondly, the purchaser of the property pending the suit or during the pendency of the litigation has no right to resist or obstruct execution of the decree passed by a competent Court as the doctrine of lis pendens prohibits party from dealing with the property, which is the subject matter of the suit. The Executing Court observed that the said agreement was entered into during the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.802/2006 and that the said agreement was an agreement, which she had entered into with a bogus person. The Executing Court was also of the view that the person from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased the property was not the true owner and that the petitioner could not get any legal right or title on the basis of the said agreement 3 of sale. In my view, considering the reasons mentioned by the Executing Court in rejecting the said Application (Exh. 15), they do not warrant any interdiction in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has already filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement against the respondent no.2. It is for the petitioner to prosecute the said suit and obtain appropriate reliefs. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj