The legal document pertains to a dispute involving the execution of a decree related to property rights, where the core issue is whether a bona fide purchaser during ongoing litigation can contest the execution of a decree without being restricted by the doctrine of lis pendens. The court reaffirmed that a transferee who acquires property from a third party, not the judgment-debtor, during the pendency of a suit, is not barred from raising objections under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (!) (!) (!) .

The court clarified that the doctrine of lis pendens primarily protects the interests of decree-holders by preventing the transfer of property that is subject to litigation, thereby ensuring finality of judgments. However, this doctrine does not extend to bona fide purchasers who acquire property from a third party not involved in the pending suit, especially if the transfer occurred prior to the judgment or decree (!) (!) (!) .

In the case at hand, the appellant, who purchased the property from a third party (the owner M/s Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) after the original suit and decree, was deemed a bona fide purchaser. The appellant's purchase was not made from the judgment-debtor or a party to the suit, and thus, Rule 102 of Order XXI did not bar him from raising objections to the execution proceedings (!) (!) (!) .

The court emphasized that the application of Rule 102 is limited to transferees who trace their title directly from the judgment-debtor during the pendency of the suit. Since the appellant's transfer was from a third-party owner and prior to the suit's final judgment, he was entitled to participate in the execution proceedings and raise objections under Rules 97 and 101 (!) (!) .

Ultimately, the court set aside the order of the High Court that had dismissed the appellant's objections and directed the executing court to proceed with the enquiry, considering the appellant's rights as a bona fide purchaser. The decision underscores that protections under the doctrine of lis pendens and Rule 102 are not absolute and are limited to specific circumstances involving direct transfers from the judgment-debtor during litigation.