( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel on both sides

( 2 ) 2. 1. The only question of law that arises for determination in this revision is: whether the purchase of the house property of the judgment-debtor named P. K. Attawar (hereinafter called 'jdr. Attavar') in Ex. Case No. 787/81, made by the petitioner Smt. B. V. Vasantha (hereinafter called the 'auction purchaser') on 28-6-1982 at the auction sale is hit by the principle of lis pendens?2. 2. This question stands answered by the Court-below in the affirmative by its impugned order dated June 20, 1988 passed in Ex. Case No. 693/82 rejecting the auction purchaser's objection therein to execution of the decree for specific performance of the contract of sale that was obtained by the respondents-Decree Holders therein (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') against the JDr. Attavar in respect of the said house property. The legality of this finding of the Court-below stands challenged by the auctionpurchaser.

( 3 ) 3. 1. The undisputed material facts bearing on the question are as follows :plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. No. 2/77 in the Court-below against JDr. Attavar for the decree of specific performance on the basis of a registered agreement dated 21-3-1975 pleading that by that agreement the latter having agreed to sell his said house property to the plaintiffs for the price stated therein, failed to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, the decree may be passed against him directing him to execute the sale deed in respect of the said house by accepting the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and to put them in possession of the house. That suit was decreed ex parte on 31-5-1977. But, curiously, instead of drawing the valid and correct decree of specific performance following the trial Court's judgment, a wrong decree i. e. , mortgage decree, was drawn up by it. After the wrong decree was so drawn up, the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the plaintiffs in the trial Court and the same was withdrawn by them some time thereafter. But the defective decree was allowed to stand without they seeking its rectification till 4-12-1982. 3. 2. In the meantime another suit in O. S. No. 47/1978 was filed in the Court-below on 30-61978 against JDr. Attavar by the Karnataka Bank for recovery of the loan amount from him on the basis of a promissory note. The said suit is hereinafter referred to as the 'banks's suit'. During pendency of that suit the said house property was got attached therein by the plaintiff Bank on 2311-1978. That suit also came to be decreed by the trial Court on 4-2-1980. Then the plaintiff-Bank (Dhr.) put the said decree into execution in Ex. Case No. 787/81 and brought the said house of JDr. Attavar to sale towards the realisation of the decretal amount. The said house was, then, duly purchased by the auction purchaser in Court auction sale held on 28-6-1982 for Rs. 65,101/and the sale was confirmed in her favour by the executing Court on 29-7-1982 and the sale certificate was also issued to her on 8-9-1982. The bid amount of Rs. 65,100/- was deposited by her in the executing Court out of which the decretal amount of Rs. 36,316-41 was withdrawn by the DHr. Bank and the balance amount of Rs. 28,783-59 was withdrawn from the Court by JDr, Attavar. 3. 3. Thereafter the auction purchaser made application under 0. 21, R. 95, C. P. C. before the Court-below in Misc. Case No. 77/82 along with necessary application seeking delivery of the said house purchased by her, by directing opening of its lock with the police help. The photostat copy of the certified copy of the order-sheet in Misc. Case No. 77/87 produced by the learned counsel for auction purchaser discloses that the order for delivery of the house to her as prayed was passed by the Court-below on 14-8-1982. Accordingly, the delivery warrant was duly executed by the Court Bailiff and she was put in actual possession of the house on 15-9-1982 and a re