The decree for injunction does not run with the land and cannot be enforced against a purchaser from a judgment-debtor.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This is a revision petition challenging the order dated 15.4.1981 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Narwana dismissing the application of the petitioner-decree holder filed under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking execution of the decree passed in their favour on 14.10.1968.

2. The facts of the case are that one Bansi Lal filed a suit against respondent-judgment debtors No. 1 to 4 and respondent-judgment debtors No. 6 to 14. Some of them are now represented by their legal representatives. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners/decree holders. The respondent- judgment debtors No. 1 to 4 were restrained from raising any other construction on the suit land without getting it partitioned with other share holders. In the application filed for execution of this decree under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code respondent No. 5 Objector (now represented by his legal heirs 5-A to 5-F) was impleaded for the first time and allegation levelled against him was that he has raised construction over the suit land. It was further asserted that having violated the terms of decree passed by the Civil Court on 14.10.1968 he is guilty of flouting the orders of the Civil Court. It was alleged that the respondents-judgment debtors No. 1 to 4 has raised construction after the decision of the appeal and, as such, the construction is liable to be demolished.

3. Respondent No. 5 (now represented by respondents No. 5-A to 5-F) filed reply to the application and raised objection that the room allegedly constructed by him was already in existence before he had purchased the property on 22.11.1978 from Smt. Darapoti, Parshotam Dass and Sat Parkash for the consideration of Rs. 5, 280/- and his vendors were in exclusive possession of the suit property. He states that a room made of kutcha bricks was in existence and Purshotam Dass had a bi-cycle repair shop in that room. According to the objector/respondent No. 5, he never raised any new construction and was simply getting some repair work done. He relied on an order dated 24.5.1972 passed by the learned Additional District Judge wherein he had ordered the demolition of construction. From that order it is shown that the construction was already in existence and no question or raising new construction would arise. It was further asserted by respondent No. 5-objector that he had purchased the suit property from Smt. Daropati Devi who was not even party to the previous suit and, as such, decree is not executable. It was subsequently complained by making an application alleging that respondents No. 1 to 4-judgment debtor have violated the stay order and had constructed a room to which respondent No. 5-objector filed reply pointing out that in appeal filed by the respondent No. 5-objector, the learned Additional District Judge, Jind had stayed operation of the judgment and decree and it was during that period respondent No. 5-objector had completed construction. He claimed that he never violated or dis-obeyed any order of the Court. The executing Court framed the issues as to whether respondent No. 5-objector (Bhalla) has dis- obeyed the injunction decree dated 14.10.1968 and as to whether the decree was executable against respondent No. 5-objector. After taking into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence, the executing Court came to the conclusion that it is not clear as to whether the room was in existence at the time when Bhalla purchased the suit property from Smt. Daropati, Parshotam Dass and Sat Parkash and that the petitioners/decree-holders have failed to prove that Bhalla disobeyed the injunction decree dated 14.10.196:3. The finding on this issue as given by the Sub-judge, Ist Class, Narwana reads as under :

"There is no gain saying of the fact that Bhalla has purchased the suit property and has also applied for construction to the Municipal Committee. Smt. Daropati one of the vendors was not a party to the main suit in which the impugned