ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Executing Court, affirmed in appeal by judgment dated 06.08.2016.

2. Whether rule of lis pendens-transfer of the property during the pendency of suit would also apply to a immoveable property which is not directly and specifically in question, in a suit?

3. Certain facts are required to be noticed. The Decree Holder filed a suit for recovery on the basis of the pro-note which was decreed on 10.12.2012. The defendant in the suit i.e. Jagjit Singh sold the property vide registered sale deed dated 24.05.2010 in favour of Gurpreet Kaur, whereas Gurpreet Kaur thereafter sold the property in favour of Baljinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 27.05.2011.

4. It may be further noticed that on an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, status-quo with regard to the alienation of the property was granted in favour of the plaintiff on 07.06.2010 i.e. after the sale deed had already been executed by Jagjit Singh in favour of Gurpreet Kaur. In the execution of the decree for recovery of the money, the Decree Holder sought to recover the amount by putting the property which had already be