RAM KUMAR TIWARI Vs. DEENANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present applicants apprehending their dispossession in execution of the decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 submitted their objections before the executing Court inter alia submitting that the property in dispute was purchased by them much before the institution of the suit and as their vendor and they themselves were not joined as party in the suit, the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder was not executable against their interest. They prayed for an inquiry in accordance with the Order 21, Rules 98 and 101. The decree-holder opposed the application tooth and nail and submitted before the Court that as the present applicants/objectors had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, therefore, and in view of the bar contained under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the present petitioners/objectors have no rights in their favour, their application was worth rejection.

(2.) After hearing the parties, under Order 18-7-2000, the learned executing Court rejected the objections holding that the property in dispute was purchased during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the objection submitted by the applicants were not worth consideration.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the objectors/applicants have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.