Civil Revision No.2300 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2300 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 5, 2011 Surjit Kaur .....Petitioner v. Harjinder Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9360-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2300 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 28.2.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura, vide which objection petition filed by petitioner has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession of the property in dispute was filed by respondent no.1-Harjinder Kaur against respondents no.2 and 3 on the basis of earlier decree passed in her favour dated 10.4.1972. Suit for possession of the property in dispute filed by respondent no.1 was decreed in her favour and against respondents no.2 and 3 on 18.9.1978. Appeal filed against the same was accepted and the suit filed by respondent no.1 was dismissed. However, in regular second appeal, against the said judgment filed before Civil Revision No.2300 of 2011(O&M) -2- this Court, judgment passed by learned first appellate Court was set aside and suit filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff was decreed on 12.12.2003. Respondent no.1-decree holder filed execution petition for possession pursuance to the said decree passed in her favour. However, during pendency of regular second appeal before this Court, present petitioner purchased property in dispute from respondent no.3 vide sale deeds dated 11.6.1991 and 20.6.1991. Objections were filed by present petitioner- defendant on the ground that she is bona fide purchaser for consideration and that the fact of pending litigation was not brought to her notice by her vendor and hence, the decree is not binding upon her. The objection petition filed by petitioner-defendant was dismissed by learned Executing Court by observing that plea taken by present petitioner that she is bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration is not maintainable as transferee is bound by decree, in which transferor was the party with respect to the property in dispute. Hence, in view of these facts, the only plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for consideration. She is claiming right in the property through one of the judgment debtors, i.e., respondent no.3. Decree is in favour of respondent no.1 and against the judgment debtor, from whom the petitioner purchased, after institution of the suit, in which the decree was passed. Order XX1 Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') provides that a subsequent transferee is having no right to resist or obstruct possession in execution of the decree for possession in the property by a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property after institution of the suit. It is pertinent to reproduce Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code, which reads as under:- “102. Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite.- Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person. Explanation:- In this Rule, “transfer” includes a transfer by Civil Revision No.2300 of 2011(O&M) -3- operation of law.” Hence, in view of the aforementioned provision of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge