P. N. Nag, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the orderdated 23. 12. 1989 passed by Shri Y. S. Jonwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class. Delhiwhereby he has upheld the objections filed under Order 21, Rule 58 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the respondentno. 2 herein-Shri Lekh Ram. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the filing of this revision petition arethat the petitioner-Jit Ram Sharma-filed a suit for permanent injunctionagainst respondent No. 1 herein-Gyan Chand-on 24. 6. 1968 restraining himfrom encroaching upon the private gali in question and raising constructionover the same. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 22. 9. 1971 passedby Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi. It appears the respondentno. 1-Judgment Debtor-started violating the injunction order and decreedated 22. 9. 1971 and the petitioner-Decree Holder-filed an execution petition against the Judgment Debtor, viz. , respondent No. 1 praying for removalof the alleged encroachment construction. During the pendency of theexecution petition, the objector respondent No. 2-Shri Lekh Ram-hereinintervened and filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure staling therein that the propertysought to be attached for satisfaction of the decree of the suit has beenpurchased by him even prior to the passing of the decree in the main suit in1991 and, therefore, he was the owner of the property. Since the objectorwas not a party to the suit filed on 24. 6. 1968 by petitioner against respondentno. 1 in which the decree for injunction had been -passed, he was not bound by such decree and, therefore, execution proceedings could not be initiatedagainst him. According to the objector, a decree for permanent injunction isalways a personal decree and it is against the personal acts of the party,which cannot be attacted or linked with the property. The objections raisedby respondent No, 2 in the execution petition have been upheld vide impugned order and the trial Court has observed that the D. H. may file a separatesuit against the objector/applicant for this purpose as the construction/obstruction cannot be removed under the present decree which is totally apersonal decree against the J. D. Sb. Gian Chand against his personal acts. Being aggrieved against this order upholding the objections, the petitioner Decree Holder has filed the present revision petition. ( 3 ) MR. Gian Chand against his personal acts. Being aggrieved against this order upholding the objections, the petitioner Decree Holder has filed the present revision petition. ( 3 ) MR. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted thatthe respondent No. 2 being a transferee of the property from the originaljudgment Debtor is equally bound and liable to be proceeded against in theexecution petition. Learned Counsel has relied upon Section 52 of thetransfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 50 the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that the principle is well settled that injunctiondoes not run with the land and in the absence of any statutory provision sucha decree cannot be enforced against the surviving members of a joint familyor against a purchaser from a Judgment Debtor. However, this principlehas been deviated in the case of legal representatives on the death of Judgment Debtor on the ground of express provision made by Section 50 of thecode of Civil Procedure. ( 5 ) IN Arnritlal Vadilal-v. Kantilal Lalbhai, (AIR 1931 Bom. 280), thedivision Bench of the Bombay High Court examined the scope of Section 50of the Code of Civil Procedure Code- and Section 52 of the Transfer ofproperty Act, 1882 and has held : "if the transferees from the legal representatives of the originaljudgment-debtor joined in execution proceedings under Sec. 50, Civilp. O. . can be proceeded against in execution on the ground that theyare bound by the result of the execution proceedings under Sec. 52,t. P. Act the transferees from the original judgment-debtor duringthe pendency of execution proceedings against him can be held tobe similarly bound and liable to be proceeded against in execution. " ( 6 ) IN Sohan Lal v. Raghunath Prasad and Others, ( AIR 1981 All. 235 ), the Full Bench in paragraph 29 of the judgment has examined theprovisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and its scope andhas observed: "transfer by any party to the suit during its pendency cannotaffect the rights of any other party to the suit. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree, but this prohibition to transferapplies during the pendency of the suit. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree, but this prohibition to transferapplies during the pendency of the suit. The pendency comes to anend inter alia, when complete satisfaction or discharge of any decreehas, inter alia, become unobtainable by reason of the expiration ofthe prescribed period of limitation for execution thereof by any lawfor the time being in force. " ( 7 ) IN this very paragraph, the Court has also referred to Gulzartlalv. Madho Ram, (1904) ILR 26 All. 447) wherein it has been held : "the word representative , when taken with reference to thejudgment-debtor, does not mean only his legal representative, thatis, his heir, executor or administrator, but means his representative-in-interest and includes a purchaser of his interest whether byprivate sale or Court auction, but so far as his interest is concerned,he is bound by that decree. " ( 8 ) IN the present case, it appears that the transfer took place prior tothe date of passing of the decree but during the pendency of the suit. At anyrate, the decree has not been satisfied as yet and for the execution thereof thepresent revision has been filed. Therefore, the transferee pendente lite isbound by the decree. ( 9 ) IN view of the law laid down by the aforementioned High Courtsand having regard to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Propertyact and Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the opinionthat respondent No. 2, being a transferee of the original Judgment Debtorduring the pendency of the suit, can also be held to be similarly bound as theoriginal Judgment Debtor and liable to be proceeded against in executionproceedings along with the original Judgment Debtor. ( 10 ) AS a result of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the executing Court is directed toconsider the case in accordance with law. ( 11 ) PARTIES to appear before the executing Court on 15/03/1993. ( 12 ) TRIAL Court record be sent back immediately.