JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - C. M. No. 3978-C of 2011 Heard. Although no ground for recalling order dated 28.02.2011 is made out, yet in the interest of justice, the application is allowed. Order dated 28.02.2011 is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number. Main Appeal 2. Geeta Devi – objector, having failed in both the courts below, has filed the instant Execution Second Appeal. Suit filed on 14.08.1996 by respondent no.1 Sunil Kumar – decree holder (DH) against respondent no.2 Rajbir – judgment debtor (JD) was decreed on 25.11.2004. First appeal against the same was dismissed on 25.10.2005. 3. Claim of the objector-appellant is that she purchased the suit property from the JD vide sale deed dated 10.02.2006. The objector claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property and therefore, resisted the execution of the decree by filing objections. 4. Learned Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, vide impugned order dated 06.03.2010, dismissed the objections preferred by the objector. First appeal preferred by objector against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide impugned judgment dated 10.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved, objector has filed the instant Execution Second Appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the objector-appellant and perused the case file. 6. As noticed herein before, it is undisputed that suit filed by respondent no.1 DH was decreed on 25.11.2004 and first appeal arising out of the said suit was dismissed 25.10.2005. It was thereafter that the objector-appellant purchased the suit property from respondent no.2 JD vide sale deed dated 10.02.2006. Consequently, the objector-appellant being successor-in-interest of the JD cannot resist the decree and cannot claim to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property. The plea of the objector-appellant is also hit by doctrine of lis pendens contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short – the Act), read with Explanation thereof, which stipulates that pendency of the suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of presentation of plaint or institution of proceeding and shall be deemed to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained or has become unobtainable by reason of expiry of limitation period. In the instant case, decree was passed in favour of respondent no.1 DH and before satisfaction of the said decree, objector-appellant purchased the suit property from respondent no.2 JD. Consequently, objector-appellant cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property. Sale in her favour by respondent no.2 JD is clearly hit by Section 52 of the Act. 7. If contention of the objector-appellant is accepted, then no successful litigant can reap or enjoy the fruits of the success i.e. decree passed by the Court because JD would successfully defeat the decree by transferring the suit property to a third person. In such a situation, the entire system of administration of justice would become redundant and would therefore, crumble and collapse. Such a situation cannot be allowed to be created either by the JD or by the transferee from the JD. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that objections preferred by third party have to be decided after framing of issues and giving opportunity to lead evidence, but it was not so done in the instant case, and therefore, the impugned orders of the courts below deserve to be set aside. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of this Court namely Gram Panchayat, Hassanpur vs. Jagdish Chand and others reported as 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 0364 and Pohlo Ram Sharma and others vs. Narinder Singh Randhawa and others reported as 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 0801. The contention is completely frivolous and meritless. The aforesaid proposition of law applies to objections preferred by third party. In the instant case, however, appellant-objector is successor-in-interest of the JD, and therefore, cannot be said to be third party. The objector-appellant being successor-in-interest of the JD is bound by the decree and therefore, objections preferred by objector, having purchased the suit property after passing of decree, are completely frivolous and meritless and no issues were required to be framed nor any opportunity of leading evidence was required to be afforded because even on the basis of facts mentioned by the objector in her objections, the same cannot be accepted. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the objections preferred by the objector-appellant are completely frivolous and meritless and have been rightly dismissed by the courts below. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the objections preferred by the objector-appellant are completely frivolous and meritless and have been rightly dismissed by the courts below. The instant second appeal is also completely frivolous and meritless and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost so as to curb such frivolous litigation. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed in limine with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court within one month from today. If the cost amount is not so deposited, the case shall be listed for this purpose. -----------0.K.B.0------------