JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The decree holder, for, enforcing the binding, and, conclusive judgment, and, decree, pronounced, upon, Civil Suit No. 277 of 2001, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendant(s), wherethrough, the latter became mandatorily injuncted, to demolish, the, construction raised, upon, the land, owned and, possessed by the plaintiff, and, as, became depicted in the apt tatima, hence, cast an execution petition, bearing Ex. Petition No. 10 of 2012, before, the learned executing Court. However, during, the pendency of the afore execution petition, before the learned executing Court, the JD reared objections therein, vis-a-vis, his alienating, the, suit property qua one Kamal Kant, and, thereupon, the decree, put to coercive execution, against him, became espoused, to, become unenforceable against him. Also the afore Kamal Kant constituted objections, before the learned executing Court, purportedly within the ambit, of, Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC, wherein, he claimed that since, he became, a, necessary party to the lis, whereon, a conclusive, and, binding decree, stood rendered, (i) given his acquiring the suit property, when, the, lis engaging the plaintiff, and, the defendant, was subjudice, before the learned trial Court, (ii) whereas, his remaining unimpleaded therein, hence, grave injustice becoming encumbered, upon, him, upon, the, apposite conclusive, and, binding decree, being put to coercive execution, vis-a-vis, the suit property. Upon the afore objections, the learned executing court rather made disaffirmative pronouncements, hence, thereon. The aggrieved therefrom one Kamal Kant, the, alienee lis pendes, has thereagainst constituted, the, extant petition before this Court. 2. Upon the afore objections, the learned executing court rather made disaffirmative pronouncements, hence, thereon. The aggrieved therefrom one Kamal Kant, the, alienee lis pendes, has thereagainst constituted, the, extant petition before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved alienee lis pendes, has for, resting his submission, before this Court, rather for invalidating, the, the order pronounced, upon, his objections, has, depended, upon, Order 21, Rule 97, (i) wherein, vis-a-vis, the decree holder qua whom, a, decree for possession qua the apt immovable property, stands pronounced, or, vis-a-vis, an auction purchaser, of, the property, hence, sold in execution of a decree, it stand(s) mandated, (ii) to, upon, theirs becoming, faced, with, valid resistance or obstruction, by the apt resister or obstructer, (iii) thereupon, the afore resister, and, obstructer also becoming empowered, to, cast an application, before the learned executing court, for enabling the latter, to, pronounce, upon, the validity, of, the posed resistances or obstructions, or vis-a-vis, the validity, of, the rights, as, are strived, to, become enforced, by the decree holder, qua, the apt immovable property, through, his preferring, an, execution petition, before, the executing court concerned. He further submits, that, the since, the, learned executing court, has, overlooked, the, afore mandate, whereas, it became, enjoined to, strike issues, upon, the objections, reared therebefore, by, the petitioner herein, (iv) and, whereafter he contends, that, with the apt evidence also becoming encumbered, to become adduced, vis-a-vis,, the formulated issues, (v) thereupon, upon, anvil, of, the afore evident statutory breaches, render the impugned order, to, warrant interference becoming made by this Court. However, this court, is, constrained to straightway reject the afore submission, (a) as, the afore submission, is, made by him, upon, his being grossly unmindful, vis-a-vis, the innate nuance, and, import of the afore provisions, hence carrying, a, signification qua theirs becoming rather validly leveraged, vis-a-vis, a person not joining, the, proceedings, in, the apt suit, whereon, a, decree for possession, vis-a-vis, the apposite suit property, becomes pronounced, (b) and, whereupon, rather, the, decree holder may prima facie, become estopped, by the apt resister or obstructer, against his seeking, any valid enforcement, of, the apt decree, upon, the resister or the obstructer, rather evidently, holding a title superior, to, the decree holder. Necessarily, it, is unworkable, vis-a-vis, an alienee lis pendens, who becomes vicariously represented, by, his alienor/JD, in the suit, or, in the execution petition, during, pendencies whereof, the, alienation of the suit property rather occurs. 3. Since, the afore espousal, is not, made in the apt application, rather when the alienation, of, the suit property, hence, occurred during the pendency, of the lis, and, whereon a conclusive, and, binding decree, became recorded, thereupon, the mandate borne, in, sub-rule (2) to Rule 98 of Order 21, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "98. Orders after adjudication.-(1) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),- (a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or (b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. (2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the Court may also, at the instance of the applicant, order the judgment-debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days." rather imminently, make hereat their apt play, and, clout, and, when readings thereof unfold (i) qua, upon, the learned executing court becoming satisfied, vis-a-vis, the, resister or obstructer, vis-a-vis, the execution, of, a decree hence put therebefore, for, coercive execution, rather being the transferee lis pendens, either during, the, pendency of the civil suit or during the pendency of the execution proceedings, (ii) thereupon, it becoming statutorily incumbent, upon, the learned executing court, to, ensure to make a direction, vis-a-vis, the conclusive, and, binding decree, being put to execution, despite, the afore untenable, and, invalid obstruction, vis-a-vis, the enforcings, of, a, decree, of, possession, rather, by, its issuing warrants of possession, against, the derelicting litigant. The afore made echoings therein, completely oust, any transferee lis pendens either during the pendency of the suit or during the pendency, of, the execution petition, to, make any valid resistance, vis-a-vis, the completest execution or enforcement of a decree, for, possession, as, pronounced, vis-a-vis, any immovable property, (iii) and, when the afore provisions specifically, govern, the factual matrix prevailing hereat, whereas, Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC, governs, a factual matrix hence contradistinct therewith, (iv) besides when Kamal Kant, and, JD, both acquiesce, vis-a-vis, the acquisition of the suit property, rather occurring during the pendency, of, the suit, engaging hence, the decree holder, and, JD, thereupon, the satisfaction recorded, within, the ambit of sub-rule (2) to Rule 98 of Order 21 of the CPC, hence by the learned executing, is, well merited. 4. Furthermore, since Rule 102 of Order 21, of, the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "102. Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite. Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person." does prima facie, on its perfunctory reading, oust the play, of, the mandate borne in sub-rule (2), of, Rule 98, of, Order 21 of the CPC, and, appertaining to, upon, the apt obstruction(s) or resistance(s), becoming posed, vis-a-vis, the enforcement, of, a conclusive, and, binding decree, qua the suit property, hence, acquired lis pendens, by, the alienee lis pendens, from, the JD. However, though prima facie, it, saves the operation, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, Order, 21, Rule 98 of the CPC, against, the alenee lis pendes, who, acquires property, from, the JD, against whom a conclusive, and, binding decree becomes pronounced, it, yet, upon, its deepest, and, incisive reading, rather unfolds qua it explicitly preserving, the, mandate, of, Order 21, Rule 98, (i) and, specifically, vis-a-vis, an alienee lis pendens, during, the pendency, of, the apt civil suit, as, hereat, the, afore Kamal Kant rather evidently, is, (ii) hence, the mandate, of, Rule 102 of Order 21, segregates, from its play, and, clout, rather the mandate of Order 21, Rule 98, and, of Rule 100, of, the CPC, vis-a-vis, an alienee lis pendens, hence, during the pendency of the civil suit. Besides, an incisive reading, of, the mandate, of, Order 21, Rule 98, also renders disabled, the, alinee lis pendens, rather during the pendency, of, the apt civil suit, to, make, any reliance(s), upon, the mandate of order 21, Rule 99, CPC, (iii) and, importantly, with the, trite nuance of rules 98 and 100, as, carried, by, the apt therein occurring coinage "not shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of decree for the possession of the immovable property by a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property", is qua it, carrying an explicit statutory exception rather against, the, resister or obstructer, upon, his being, an, alienee lis pendens, during, the pendency, of, the civil suit, from, his relying, upon, the, mandate, of, Rule 98, Rule 99, and, upon, the mandate, of, Rule 100, of, the CPC, hence, obviously, render, the, provisions, of, Rule 98, to, become applicable hereat. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the extant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the orders impugned before this Court, are, affirmed, and, maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned executing court on 30th December, 2019. Records be sent back forthwith.