Short Note : 1. The non-applicant No. 1 filed civil misc. appeal No. 39 of 75 in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Ratlam, against the order of the Executing Court dated 10-10-75. The learned Additional District Judge allowed that appeal by the impugned order and demanded the case to the Executing Court for making enquiry into the merits of the application of non-applicant No. 1 under Order 21, rules 35 & 97 read with section 151 C.P.C. Against that order the applicant has come to this Court in revision. Held : Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that this revision must be allowed. It is not disputed that non-applicant No.2 Rameshchandra, the original judgment debtor against whom the decree for eviction was passed had transferred the suit house to non-applicant No 1, Ismail during the pendency of the second appeal. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendence under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would come into play and the said transfer cannot affect the right of the applicant to execute the decree. Moreover, an enquiry into an application under Order 21, rule 97 C.P.C, made by non-applicant No.1, Who is a transferee pendente lite is barred under Order 21, rule 102 C.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 contends that in the application given by the said non-applicant the previsions of Order 21, rules 35 and 97 were wrongly quoted. H is urged that the non-applicant No.1 having purchased the suit property from non-applicant No.2, the non-applicant No.1 stepped into the shoes of non-applicant No.2 and, therefore, he could raise a question for consideration whether the decree had become inexecutable It may be pointed out that the non-applicant No.1 in his application under Order 21, rules 35 and 97 read with section 151 C.P,C., has clearly stated that he has purchased the right of redemption from the non-applicant NO.2 judgment-debtor and not the lease hold rights with respect to which the decree for eviction was passed. He, therefore, claims to be in possession of the suit house independently of the judgment-debtor. He, therefore, claims to be in possession of the suit house independently of the judgment-debtor. An application under Order 21, rule 97 can be filed by the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property on the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree when he is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property. Therefore, the application under Order 21, rule 97 C.P.C, by the non-applicant was not at all competent. Revision allowed.