Execution of decree--Framing of Issues--It is not incumbent upon the Executing Court to frame issues in every case irrespective of the merits of the objection petition.

Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- This order will dispose of ESA Nos.233 and 234 of 2016 as identical questions of law and fact are involved for adjudication. For brevity, facts are taken from ESA No.233 of 2016.

2. Jai Gopal Kohli (since deceased) now represented by his LRs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.12.2001 purported to be executed by Mukund Lal son of late Sh. Atma Ram in respect of property measuring 83 sq. yds. forming part of residential House No.1-D/103, NIT, Faridabad. Later, Smt. Hemlata Bhatia @ Jyoti Bhatia and Surender Singh Bhatia were impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3 in the said suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2012. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has attained finality upto the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

3. Jai Gopal Kohli – decree-holder represented by his LRs filed an application for execution of the decree wherein objections were filed by the JDs and third parties namely Sonia Bhatia and Asha Arora. The objections filed by the JDs and third parties were dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Faridabad vide order dated 03.05.2016. The appeals preferred by Asha Arora and Sonia Bhatia were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 08.12.2016 and the findings recorded by the Executing Court were affirmed.

4. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the orders passed by the Courts below on several grounds. The first submission made by counsel is that suit filed by Jai Gopal Kohli on 11.09.2003 was dismissed in default on 01.06.2006 and the same was restored on 19.09.2008. It is argued that as no suit was pending in the Court when an award dated 05.09.2006 by the Lok Adalat in respect of the suit property was passed in favour of Hemlata, sale in favour of the appellant by Hemlata by way of registered sale deed dated 20.12.2012 qua area measuring 60.26 sq. yds. is not hit by the principle of lis pendens. In addition, it is argued that the appellant did not have knowledge of pendency of the suit and purchased the property in question after making due enquiries and examining the award passed in favour of Smt. Hemlata, she is entitled to protect her rights in the suit property being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice.

5. The second submission made by counsel is that in the suit filed by the decree-holder, he impleaded Hemlata Bhatia @ Jyoti Bhatia and Surender Singh Bhatia as defendants No.2 and 3 and by way of amendment of the plaint on the basis of an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 09.05.2009, he prayed for a decree of declaration that the impugned award bearing No.10651 dated 19.09.2006 in the name of Smt. Hemlata Bhatia and the subsequent impugned agreement to sell dated 23.01.2009 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of Surender Singh Bhatia – defendant No.3 are absolutely wrong, forged and fictitious documents and are not binding upon the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. According to counsel, no such decree of declaration in respect of the aforesaid award and agreement to sell dated 23.01.2009 was passed in favour of the decreeholder meaning thereby that his prayer in this regard was declined. It is argued with vehemence that as the Court did not grant the relief of declaration qua the aforesaid documents, the decree-holder cannot execute the decree against Hemlata Bhatia and consequently against the present appellant having stepped into the shoes of Hemlata Bhatia.

6. Counsel for the appellant has made a vain attempt to argue that as the decree in favour of the decree-holder is only qua specific performance of contract dated 24.12.2001 without any relief of possession, issuance of warrants of possession by the Executing Court for delivery of possession in pursuance of the sale deed executed through process of the Court is unwarranted and warrants of possession are liable to be recalled.

7. The la