Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.07.2011 passed by learned court below rejecting the objections of the Petitioners (judgment -debtor/Defendant), legal representatives of Natha Ram S/o Motiji by caste Bheel and Prabhu Ram S/o Moti under Order 22 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Code of Civil Procedure'). The learned court below directed that in pursuance of decree dated 01.09.1975, which has become final up -to High Court granting mandatory injunction against the Defendants that they will not interfere with the possession of the suit property of the Plaintiff, the learned Executing Court has directed that possession of the suit property with the judgment -debtor may be removed forcibly and same may be handed -over to decree -holder. Mr. B.V. Thanvi, learned counsel for the Petitioners (judgment -debtor/objectors) relying upon a decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Mr. D'souza J. v. Mr. A. Joseph reported in, AIR 1993 Karn 68 and another decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Anandam & etc. v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation & etc. reported in, 1997 AIHC 1444 and decision of this Court in the case of LR's of Deen Dayal v. LR's of Ram Chandra and Anr. reported in, 2010 (1) WLN 660 (Raj.) submitted that since the suit property, which in the meanwhile was transferred to a third party by the judgment -debtor, therefore, the order impugned dated 22.07.2011 under Order 22 Rule 35 could not be passed by the learned Executing directing that possession be handed over to the Plaintiff (decree -holder). He further submitted that without holding the enquiry as to whether the judgment -debtor had forcibly taken either possession of the suit property after the decree was passed or not, therefore, the order impugned could not be passed issuing warrant of possession against the present judgment -debtOrs. 4.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and upon perusal of judgment cited at bar and impugned order dated 22.07.2011, which runs in 22 pages, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below has dealt -with all the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and has found that decree dated 01.09.1975 was passed on a compromise between the parties, which had become final up -to High Court, and even the civil suit filed by the present judgment -debtor for cancellation of such decree was dismissed by the learned trial court and appeals against that, were also dismissed up -to High Court, but instead of complying with the judgment and decree, the judgment -debtors have transferred the property to a third party which was hit by the principles of lis pendense and therefore, the direction has rightly been given that judgment -debtor shall hand -over the possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff -decree holder in consonance with Order 22 Rule 32 Code of Civil Procedure.;