The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections filed under Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 CPC were not maintainable under Rule 102 of Order 21 CPC, as the respondent had purchased the suit property after the passing of the decree.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court against the order dated 13th January, 2012 passed in Execution No.46/06, titled as Sh. N.D. Mishra vs. Ms. Nisha Chauhan, whereby the Executing Court while entertaining the objections filed under Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 CPC framed the issues and issued the directions to the parties to lead their evidence on those issues.

2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/decree holder is that the issues as framed by the Executing Court are beyond the scope of judgment and decree dated 1st February, 2003 which is sought to be executed. The adjudication of the title of the decree-holder at the instance of a transferee pendent lite would be beyond the scope of decree already passed in which the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree. All the issues framed in the execution have already been determined by the various courts from time to time. Fresh trial in the matter is not called for even when as per settled law the objections filed by the respondent are not maintainable. The impugned order is not legally correct and is liable to be set-aside as the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the facts and law and particularly the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court on the issue involved in the present matter.

3. Brief facts are that one Sh. N.D. Mishra was the owner of the property in dispute bearing No.27, Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi. The completion certificate was issued in his name by the competent authority on 8th July, 1988. On 24th August, 1995, leasehold rights were converted into freehold and a conveyance deed came to be executed in his favour. The property in question was self-acquired property. Sh. N.D. Mishra who had a family of his wife, son Mr. Yogesh Mishra and three married daughters. Mr. Omesh Mishra, his another son had expired and in his memory a Public Charitable Trust was created by his wife Smt. Raj Mishra with the name and style of “OMESH MISHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST” in January, 1992.

4. Sh. N.D. Mishra being the lawful owner of the property in October, 1986 had inducted a tenant Ms. Nisha Chauhan at the monthly lease rent of Rs.7000/-.

5. After the expiry of the lease as the tenant failed to vacate the suit property, Sh. N.D. Mishra had filed a suit for possession against the tenant, i.e. Ms. Nisha Chauhan being Civil Suit No.181/94. He was also examined as PW-1 in the said suit, however, during the pendency of the suit, he expired on 27th May, 1998. After his death, an application was filed on 13th August, 1998 by his legal heirs under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution in his place. The said application was allowed by order dated 13th August, 1998. His wife Mrs. Raj Mishra, Mr. Yogesh Mishra (son), Mrs. Dheera Sharma, Mrs. Neena Bhardwaj and Mrs. Meena Sharma, all three daughters, are brought on record as being legal heirs.

6. As per pleadings of the trial Court, it appears that in August, 1992 he executed a will on 29th August, 1992 bequeathing the property in question in favour of the Trust created by his wife in the name of son i.e. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust. A perusal of the said Will executed by him reveals that Sh. N.D. Mishra had enlisted various properties owned by him and had further stated that he had already spent huge amount upon his son Mr. Yogesh Mishra, including purchasing of a plot and construction of a house for him at Jalandhar and therefore, he was now excluding his son Mr. Yogesh Mishra from inheriting any of his properties. It was further stated that after his death, the property in dispute shall vest in the Trust created by his wife. Two trustees shall arrange to sell the house 75% of the sale proceeds shall be kept by the Trust, whereas the remaining 25% of the sale proceeds shall be equally apportioned between the three daughters.

7. In Aug