JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Auction purchasers Jagraj Singh and another have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing orders of the Executing Court dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P-6) and judgment of the appellate court dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P-7) thereby setting aside the auction sale made in execution petition, on objections preferred by respondents no.7 to 18. 2. In execution of money decree in favour of decree holders/respondents no.1 to 6, disputed property was sold. Petitioners herein are auction purchasers. Respondents no.7 to 18 filed objections challenging the auction sale. It was alleged that Harnam Kaur was sole owner of the land in question. She agreed to sell the same to Jasminder Singh (respondent no.9) and Bhagwan Kaur – represented by other objectors, vide agreement dated 06.12.1984. Suit filed by objectors for specific performance of the said agreement was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.1991. The objectors also claimed to be in cultivating possession of the disputed land. However, this land was sold in auction held on 15.02.1992 in execution petition instituted by respondents no.1 to 6. The said sale has been challenged by the objectors. 3. The objections were resisted by the auction purchasers by raising various pleas. They pleaded that they are bona fide purchasers of the disputed land in auction held in execution petition. Claim of the objectors to the disputed land was resisted. 4. Learned Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, vide impugned order dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P-6), allowed the objections preferred by the objectors and set aside the sale. Appeal against the said order preferred by auction purchasers has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, vide judgment dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P-7). Feeling aggrieved, auction purchasers have filed the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there was no entry of interim injunction order against sale of the disputed land in the revenue record and petitioners are therefore bona fide purchasers of the disputed land. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. Suit of objectors for specific performance of the agreement to sell the disputed land already stood decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.1991. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. Suit of objectors for specific performance of the agreement to sell the disputed land already stood decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.1991. Consequently, auction of the disputed land thereafter on 15.02.1992 cannot be binding on the objectors and cannot adversely affect their rights. The said auction is also hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The auction sale has been rightly set aside by the courts below. There was also injunction against sale of the disputed land. Consequently, auction sale effected in violation of injunction order issued by the Court also cannot be sustained for this reason. Non-making of entry of injunction in revenue record would not make the injunction inoperative nor the petitioners can be said to be bona fide purchasers of the disputed land when there was injunction against sale thereof. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned orders of the courts below are fully justified. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said orders nor the said orders suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC or in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The revision petition is thus found to be meritless and is dismissed in limine. --------------