Heard Mr. M. M. Patil (Beedkar), learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. N. Kalani. learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. Admit.

3. With the consent of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing.

4. The present Respondent had filed a suit for injunction against one Mohd. Osman s/o. Pir sab. The said suit came to be decreed on 1.4.2006. After the said suit was decreed. the defendant Mohd. Osman preferred an appeal on 15.4.2006. During the pendency of the appeal Mohd. Osman sold the suit property to Hanifabegum vide registered sale deed dt.l.6.2006. Thereafter, Hanifabegum made an application to implead her as an appellant in place of Mohd. Osman purportedly invoking Order 22. Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The said application was allowed. Mohd. Osman came to be deleted and Hanifabegum continued the appeal. The District Court while dismissing the appeal did not dialect on the merits of the matter and on the count that the decree passed by the trial Court is binding on Hanifabegum, did not interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The prayer of remand made by the appellant was also not considered. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant has approached this Court.

5. Mr. M. M. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Amritlal Vadilal Vs. Kantilal Lalbhai" AIR 1931 Bombay 280, contended that the decree of injunction being personal, the order of injunction does not run with the land and as such the decree passed against the judgment debtor/original defendant is not binding on the purchaser. He also further submitted that the District Court has not decided the matter on the merits. thereby has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present appellant is a purchaser pendente lite and being a purchaser pendente lite, the decree passed by the trial Court is binding on the appellant and for the said purpose relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Krishnabai Pandurang Salagare and others Vs. Savlaram Gangaram Kumtekar" AIR 1927 Bombay 93. So also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Murlidhar s/o. Bhima Vaidya and another Vs. Nababbi Yousufkhan, deceased through legal heirs and others" 2000(1) Com.C.R. 670: [1999(4) ALLMR 683] and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a case of "Ram chandra Deshpande Vs. Laxmana Rao Kulkarni" AIR 2000 Karnataka 298. He further submitted that the appellant did not canvass any arguments on the merits of the matter and same was rightly not considered by the lower appellate Court. He prayed to dismiss the appeal. In the facts and circumstances, following substantial questions of law arise:

"(i) Whether the decree of perpetual injunction passed against the defendant is binding on his purchaser pendente lite;

(ii) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court can be sustained as it has not given any finding on the merits of the matter."

Before adverting to the arguments of the learned counsel it would be appropriate to refer to relevant provisions:

"Order 21. Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure - Decree for specific performance for restitution of coniugal rights. or for an iniunction.- (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. has been passed. has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

(2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is