Lis pendens bars a pendente lite purchaser from resisting execution; Order XXI Rule 29 CPC offers no protection.

A transferee pendente lite cannot resist execution of a decree by asserting an independent right acquired after institution of the suit. Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, read with the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, bars such obstruction and limits inquiry to whether the objector derived title during the pendency of the suit. Order XXI Rule 29 CPC applies to a suit by the judgment-debtor against the decree-holder and does not protect a subsequent purchaser facing execution. The stay granted by the Executing Court was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit can resist execution of the decree on the basis of a subsequent suit and whether Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can protect such purchaser against execution.

Analysis: Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 excludes the application of Rules 98 and 100 where resistance or obstruction is offered by a transferee who acquired the property after institution of the suit in which the decree was passed. The rule is rooted in the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and prevents a transferee pendente lite from claiming an independent right to obstruct execution. The scope of adjudication in such cases is confined to whether the objector derived title during the pendency of the suit. Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to a suit by the judgment-debtor against the decree-holder and has no application where the objector is a transferee pendente lite.

Conclusion: The purchaser during pendency of the suit could not resist execution, and the stay granted by the Executing Court was rightly set aside.

---