1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 on caveat. The revision is being disposed of after hearing these parties finally.

2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be Opponent No.4 in Regular Darkhast No.25/2009 pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi. According to the petitioner, he objected to the execution of the Darkhast on the ground that the decree passed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was preliminary decree and so, the same was not executable unless final decree proceedings are drawn up before the trial Court. The executing Court heard the petitioner referring to him as "alleged Judgment Debtor No.4" and after hearing the decree holder also, has rejected the application of the present petitioner.

3. I have heard counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent No.1. According to learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 Dattatraya had brought suit for specific performance against respondent No.2 Dr. Dilip and respondent No.3 Umrao (arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit - Regular Civil Suit No.170/1996) before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi). The suit came to be decreed on 8.3.2002 and the decree has been maintained even till Second Appeal to High Court. Counsel for petitioner submitted that, there was another dispute between respondent No.3 (Judgment Debtor No.2) and his wife Jayshree, the present respondent No.4 (but who was not party to the Civil Suit No. 170/1996) in Family Court at Bandra having No.634/2000 and compromise took place between them. In the said compromise, the respondent No.3, by way of permanent alimony, handed over suit land admeasuring 85 R to respondent No.4, and respondent No.3 executed sale deed dated 27.4.2001 in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 in turn sold the suit land to petitioner on 29.12.2008. The Second Appeal in the matter was disposed on 3.2.2012 and it is not disputed that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner on 29.12.2008 was lis pendens in Regular Civil Suit No.170/1996. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, in execution, this petitioner was arrayed as opponent No.4 and thus, he filed the application objecting to the execution.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, in the matter of Chanda (dead through L.Rs.) Vs. Rattni & anr., reported in 2007 (3) ALL MR 341 (SC), decree under Specific Performance Act has been held to be preliminary and so, according to the learned counsel, it is necessary to draw up a final decree before it can be put to execution. Learned counsel submitted that, under Section 2(10) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short), petitioner cannot be said to be Judgment Debtor but still claimed that the petitioner had raised the objections under Section 47 of CPC as he had been arrayed in Darkhast as Opponent No.4. It was also argued that, the petitioner has purchased 85 R land whereas suit property under the concerned decree is 35 R and so also it would require division.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner was purchaser during pendency of the dispute. According to him, although respondent No.3 created third party interest by first transferring the property to his wife and then she transferring the same to petitioner, still the original defendant kept litigating in the appeals. The learned counsel submitted that the decree cannot be said to be preliminary because the decree directed the plaintiff-decree holder to deposit the money within three months and the amount was accordingly deposited and so, it is final decree and the same is executable. According to the learned counsel, the judgment in the matter of "Chanda" (supra) will not help the petitioner as the object is only to protract the litigation so as to deprive the decree holder of fruits of the decree. He placed reliance on Section 2(2) of the CPC to submit that the decree can be partly pre