A purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree, as per Order XXI Rule 102 and the doctrine of lis pendens.

Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent

2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Executing Court”) in Misc. (J) Case No.776/2022 arising out of Title Execution Case No.17/2022 whereby the prayer of the petitioners for rejection of the said application was turned down.

3. For deciding the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which are narrated herein infra.

4. The Respondent No.2 herein had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.223/1997 seeking a declaration that the defendants (the petitioners herein) had no right to evict the Respondent No.2 i.e. the plaintiff, from the suit premises as described in the Schedule to the plaint without following the due process and for permanent injunction. The Schedule land as described in the said suit was a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 17 Lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.661 of Dag No.1107 of village Sahar Guwahati 2nd Part, Mouza Guwahati wherein houses were standing thereon bearing Guwahati Municipal Corporation Holding No.388 of Ward No.XVIII.

5. The defendants in the said suit who are the petitioners herein filed a written statement-cum-counter claim denying the allegations made in the said suit and further seeking that the defendants had right, title and interest over the suit property; for declaration that the Sale Deed No.7213/1992 dated 30.11.1992 was fraudulent, collusive and void ab initio and the same did not confer any right, title and interest upon the Respondent No.2 herein over the suit property or any part thereof and for delivery and cancellation of the said deed; ejectment of the plaintiff/the Respondent No.2 herein from the suit property; recovery of khas possession of suit property by evicting and removing the plaintiff/Respondent No.2 herein and all his men, materials therefrom; for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff and his men, agents, servants, workmen from entering into the suit property and from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the defendants over the suit property; recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the wrong done to the godown, house structures on the suit land, for issuance of precept etc.

6. On the basis of the said suit so filed as well as the counter claim, as many as 6 issues were framed. After adducing the evidence by the parties, the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati vide a judgment and order dated 25.09.2006 dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim of the defendants/petitioners herein.

7. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the Respondent No.2 herein which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.109/2006 before the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Vide a judgment and decree dated 15.09.2007, the said appeal was dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.2 herein preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered and numbered as RSA No.56/2008.

8. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of a development which took place pursuant to the filing of the suit and counter claim. The Respondent No.1 in the present proceedings vide a registered deed No.2703/01 dated 20.03.2001 purchased a RCC super built up area with roof casting measuring 1307 sq. ft. The said Respondent No.1 also purchased the same area being Flat No.403 on the fourth floor along with proportionate interest in respect to the land vide a deed of sale bearing Deed No.166/2014 on 07.01.2014. This Court had put a specific query upon the learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No.1