Mr. K. Kannan, J.:- I. Setting up the context for the lis

1. The revision is against the order upholding a third party objection to an execution petition filed by the decree holder in an ejectment action under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The Executing Court was upholding the objection of the third party objector holding that the property which was sought to be executed for delivery belonged to the objector and that he could not be ejected physically and the execution application cannot be further pursued.

II. The width of adjudicatory exercise

2. The property in dispute was a house in Door No.2109, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. The execution was with reference to a predicated half share of the house which had been claimed by the decree holder to have been rented out initially to one Roop Lal. It appears that when the petition was pending, a third party by name Gopal Dass (decree holder’s husband’s brother) sought for impleadment but the same was rejected by the Rent Controller and ultimately an order of eviction was passed on 08.03.1989. It was this order of eviction which was sought to be executed through an execution petition filed in the year 1998. At that stage, the objector Satinder Pal Singh Bhullar sought for an adjudication on the right and title of the decree holder to put the order of eviction in execution on a contention that he was a purchaser of the property from one Balwinder Singh on 18.10.1995, who, in turn, had earlier purchased the property from one Gopal Dass on 03.07.1989. In effect, third party was contending that the half share which was being put in execution was indeed a half share which belonged to the share of Gopal Dass. As a third party objection petition, the case was required to be decided on whether the person, who claimed as an objector, had a right to be retained in possession and cause an obstruction to a decree holder.

3. The Executing Court on considering the documents filed by the parties found that the property had been originally allotted by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration to the decree holder Veeran Devi and Gopal Dass jointly and a sale deed had been executed in their favour jointly and subsequently, the property had transferred hands first through a transaction in favour of Balwinder and M/s Jasbrinder Ahluwalia on 03.07.1989 and still later, the subsequent transfer had taken place in favour of the objector. The decree holder Veeran Devi died in December 2001 and the objector’s predecessor Gopal Dass died in the year 1997.

III. Principal contentions by revision petitioners

4. Against the order upholding the objectors’ claim that they were entitled the half share and that the property could not be delivered to the legal heirs of the decree holder, namely, her sons, the amicus curiae echoes the contentions as reflected in the pleadings and gives a legal flavour on the following lines: (i) the objector was a transferee pendente lite and consequently, an objection cannot be a subject of adjudication under Order 21 Rule 102 CPC; (ii) The Executing Court is bound to execute the decree and deliver possession of the property and cannot go behind the decree and render an adjudication on title to the property; (iii) The judgments between the third parties not inter parties cannot be relied upon and they are wholly irrelevant under Section 43 of the Evidence Act; (iv) The transactions of sale are hit by lis pendens and, therefore, they are wholly inadmissible to operate to create any interest in favour of the objector.

(i) Objection to maintainability of objection-Area of operation of interdict under Order 21 Rule 102 CPC.

5. I am unable to verify from the documents as to when exactly the rent petition was filed. I take it that the decree was obtained on 08.03.1989. The amicus curiae relies on Usha Sinha Versus Dina Ram and others, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2749] : (2008) 7 SCC 144; Silverline Forum Private Limited Versus Rajiv Trust and another-(1998) 3 SCC 723, and ce