Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. Respondent/objector filed objections against the judgment and decree on the plea that he had purchased the property in dispute from Judgment debtor Nathi Ram for valuable consideration as per sale deed dated 28.3.2002.

2. Nathi Ram Judgment Debtor had entered into an agreement of sale with the decree holder on 21.10.1999 for sale of the disputed property. The suit was decreed on the basis of compromise on 21.11.2003. In the execution petition the petitioner sought possession of the property in which the respondent/objector raised a plea that he was bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice. Learned Executing Court by placing reliance on the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short the Act) summarily dismissed the objection petition by holding that subsequent vendee was bound by the decree.

3. Learned appellate court by placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Farida Khatoon & Anr., 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 651 : 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 423 held that as the decree was based on compromise the principle of lis pendens were not applicable and therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Executing Court to have framed issues on the objection petition and given opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The order of the learned Executing Court was set aside and the case remanded back for decision on the objections in accordance with the law.

4. Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned appellate court on the contention that the judgment is without jurisdiction as no appeal was competent against the summary rejection of objections by a vendee who purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. In support of this contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohamed Masthan v. Society Congregation, Bros., S. Heart & Anr. 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 611, wherein Honble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under :-

"9. It is not in dispute that the consent decree passed in O.S.No. 1220 of 1987 has not yet been set aside. It is furthermore not in dispute that in terms of the consent decree, the First Respondent herein is in possession. A decree for permanent injunction has been passed in its favour. The appellant herein in terms of the decree passed in his favour in OS No. 140 of 2003 and the purported sale deed pursuant thereto on 17.6.2003, merely has stepped into the shoes of the Second Respondent. He cannot claim a better title than her. Thus, so long the decree passed in the said OS No. 1220 of 1987 is not set, and/or the original suit No. 381 of 2003 is not decreed, the possession of the First Respondent herein could not have been interfered with. The slip-shod manner in which the purported delivery of possession was sought to be effected has been noticed by us. The Central Nazir did notice that the schedule property was not in possession of the judgment debtor in OS No. 140 of 2003 but still the possession thereof was purported to have been taken through Senior Bailiff under Order 21, Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even the Senior Baillif in his report states that he went to the plaintiffs place. The defendant was not there. How the land was identified had not been shown. Even the Village Administrative Officer refused to sign.

10. In that view of the mater, when the First Respondent in its application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stated that it continued to be in possession, the same cannot be disbelieved. In any event, having regard to the fact that the First Respondent could not have been dispossessed pursuant to or in furtherance of the decree passed in the said OS No. 140 of 2003, it would be entitled to continue to possess the said property and in the event, possession has been taken symbolically or otherw