JUDGEMENT 1. On earlier occasion, this Court issued notice upon the Opposite Parties to show cause why this application be not allowed and the matter, if possible, be disposed of at the stage of admission itself 2. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1(ii), 1(iv) and 1(vii). Other Opposite Parties have not appeared despite service of notice. 3. I, thus, now proceed to dispose of the case. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 17/2002 by the Munsif, Rosera whereby he has recalled his earlier order staying Execution Case No. 6/01 pending disposal of the aforesaid Misc. Case. 5. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the land in dispute from one of the defendants of Title Suit No. 72/99, who is Opposite Party No. 2 herein. His case is that after purchasing the said land, he has constructed a house thereon. During execution of the decree in the aforesaid title suit by the plaintiff, when the same came to his knowledge, a petition was filed before the court concerned under Oder XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. for determining his objections as he was likely to be dispossessed by the plaintiff. Initially, on his petition Execution Case No. 6/2001 was stayed. However, an objection was filed by the other side and by the impugned order dated 11.8.2006 the stay already granted was vacated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when such petition was filed by the petitioner then that ought to have been decided in terms of Order XXI Rules 100 & 101 C.P.C. Thus, according to him, there is no need to dispossess him first and then decide the issue and as such the impugned order vacating the stay of further proceedings of the Execution Case, prior to deciding the Misc. Case filed by the plaintiff, is in the teeth of law laid down by the Apex Court in Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr., reported in A.I.R. 1997 SC 856. 7. Learned counsel for the petitoner submits that since the property has admittedly been purchased by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, as such the same was hit by the principle of lis pendens and, thus, his claim is fit to be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitoner submits that since the property has admittedly been purchased by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, as such the same was hit by the principle of lis pendens and, thus, his claim is fit to be rejected. In support of his submission,he has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Jayaram Mudaliar vs. Ayyaswami & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1973 SC 569. 8. However, learned counsel appearing for both the parties agreed that the aforesaid petition filed by the petitioner may be adjudicated by the court concerned first and thereafter the aforesaid Execution Case may be proceeded with. 9. In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties, without going into the merit of the case, the Munsif, Rosera is directed to dispose of the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 17/2002 prior to proceeding with Execution Case No. 6/01. 10. The parties, who are present here. will appear before the court concerned and will not make any unnecessary prayer before the court below for adjournments of the case. 11. The court below is further directed to hear the parties and adjudicate the matter finally in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this Civil Revision stands disposed of.