ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition was filed to call for records in E.P. No. 25 of 2003 on the file of the Labour Court-I and to set-aside the order dated 20-12-2006 by allowing the Application of Petitioners and to consequently set-aside the sale in favour of the 3 rd Respondent. 2. Petitioners claim to be the purchasers of Acs.8-00 guntas in Survey No.518 (Part) of Kistapur Village, Medchal Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District from Respondent No.2 Company which was the Judgment Debtor in the impugned proceedings, Respondent No.3 was the auction purchaser of land admeasuring Acs.2-03 guntas situated Survey No.517, Kistapur forming part of Acs.8-00 through auction held on directions of Respondent No.1-Labour Court conducted on 16-10-2004, Respondents 4 to 8 are subsequent purchasers of the subject property from Respondent No.3. 2.1. It is the case of petitioners that their names were mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal Mandal dated 31-08-2005. At the time of sale, it was informed that property was mortgaged to South Indian Bank Ltd., MG Road, Secunderabad against the loan granted to Respondent Company. Petitioners paid loan amount to the said bank on behalf of the company and got released the title deeds. Petitioners also paid the amounts due to workers as well as Sales Tax Department and remitted the amounts due to the workers before the Labour Court; consequently E.P. No. 25 of 2003 was closed on 15-06-2005; property was registered in their names after closure of the Execution Petition by setting aside the auction sale dated 16-10-2004 made in favour of Respondent No.3 by the Labour Court. 2.2. It is further contended that, Respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 but failed to implead Petitioners though he was aware of their right and entitlement, therefore, petitioners had taken out the Application to implead themselves as parties. By the time they could enter appearance before this Court, on the same day i.e. 03-03-2006, Writ Petition itself was disposed of remanding the matter to Labour Court to hear the parties and dispose of the case. It is the case of Petitioners that though no notice was served, the 3 rd Respondent suppressed the material facts and obtained an order behind their backs. 2.3. It is the case of Petitioners that though no notice was served, the 3 rd Respondent suppressed the material facts and obtained an order behind their backs. 2.3. Writ petitioners contend at paragraph 7 that on 07-06-2006, the 3 rd Respondent brought some persons to the property and stealthily, broke the fencing from the backside of the factory run by them and started marking the plot on the ground; on 08-06-2006, petitioners came to know that the 3 rd Respondent by misleading the Labour Court, obtained sale certificate behind their back; on further enquiry, it was revealed that through auction which was conducted on 16-10-2004, the 3rd Respondent had given a cheque dated 16-10-2004, only for part of the amount and had not deposited the balance amount within time; he paid the remaining amount by way of demand draft on 08-06-2005, which is almost nine months after the auction sale. It is stated, accepting such amounts from the 3rd Respondent and confirming the auction sale in his favour itself is an illegality, nevertheless, on 15-06-2005, the entire amount due as auction money together with 5% of impound was duly remitted by the 2 nd Respondent Judgment debtor to the Labour Court and consequently, the Labour Court allowed the Application of the 2nd Respondent in E.A. No. 22 of 2005 and set aside the sale in favour of the 3rd Respondent. Thus, on 17-06-2005, when Petitioners purchased the scheduled property through registered sale deeds, the 3 rd Respondent had no right or entitlement, and the said auction in his favour had already been set aside and the claim of workmen had also stood extinguished. There was no charge or encumbrance on the property, thus petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the property. 2.4. Petitioners claim that on 07-06-2006, certain people intruded into the property by breaking the fence and started putting stones demarcating portion of open land in the back of the factory and sought to disturb the right; on 08-06-2006, petitioners learnt that Labour Court had passed an order behind their back taking advantage of the same. 2.4. Petitioners claim that on 07-06-2006, certain people intruded into the property by breaking the fence and started putting stones demarcating portion of open land in the back of the factory and sought to disturb the right; on 08-06-2006, petitioners learnt that Labour Court had passed an order behind their back taking advantage of the same. It is the specific case of Petitioners that Labour Court has been misled in passing the order and neither the 2nd Respondent Judgment Debtor nor the 3rd Respondent auction purchaser brought it to the notice of the Labour Court that Petitioners are in possession of the property as lawful purchasers and deposited the entire decretal claim in the Labour Court. 2.5. It is the case of petitioners that when the entire amount claimed by the workmen is deposited into the Court for and on behalf of the 2nd Respondent judgment debtor, the claim stands discharged and no further proceeding ought to have been held against judgment debtor or anyone claiming through it, and the 3 rd Respondent is not entitled to claim the property but would only be entitled to receive back the advance amount remitted by him. The thrust of petitioners is that the 2nd respondent violated the orders of this Court and played mischief in not putting petitioners on notice, knowing fully-well that they were the affected parties and are in possession of the property; aggrieved by the same, Petitioner filed E.A. No. 38 of 2006 before the Labour Court under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. claiming the property. They have also filed E.A. No. 37 of 2006 and E.A. 39 of 2006 seeking stay of all further proceedings including confirmation of sale in favour of the 3 rd Respondent. After enquiry, the Labour court passed the order dated 20-12-2006, dismissing E.A. No.38 of 2006 against which the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The case of Respondent No.3 is that workmen of Respondent No.2 company had obtained Award for payment of teir wages and in order to execute the said Award, they filed E.P. No. 25 of 2003 on the file of the 1 st Respondent Labour Court which by order dated 11-12-2003, ordered attachment of immovable property belonging to Respondent No.2 - Judgement Debtor, which is prior to the sale of the said property in favour of Petitioners on 17-06-2005. By the said date, the property purchased was bound by the order of attachment dated 11-12-2003. Thereafter, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who duly issued newspaper publications in Vartha and Praja Shakti Telugu newspapers on 09-10-2004 and 14-10-2004 respectively announcing the auction of the Scheduled property fixing the date for auction as 16-10-2004, on which date, admittedly, public auction was conducted wherein Respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder at Rs.2,16,000/- per acre and sale was made in his favour. It is stated, Respondent No.3 made 50% payment vide cheque No. 346568 dated 16-10-2004 for Rs.2,25,000/-. Two representatives of Respondent No.2 and one Mr. P Srinivas, Branch Manager of South India Bank Limited were also present and signed the sale proceedings. It is the case of Respondent No.3 that he submitted another cheque No. 346572 dated 10-11-2004 for Rs. 2,23,200/- which is the balance sale purchase money before the Labour Court. 3.1. Subsequently, on 08-02-2005, Respondent No.2 Judgment Debtor filed E.A. No.22 of 2005 in E.P. No. 25 of 2003 to set-aside the auction dated 16-10-2004 on the ground that there were certain irregularities and fraud committed in conduct of public auction. Respondent No.2 represented in the Application that time may be granted for depositing the proclamation amount together with the purchase money, accordingly the Court had granted one day time and posted the matter to 15-06-2005. Likewise E.A. No.40 of 2005 was filed on 07-06-2005 by Respondent No. 2 under Section 151 of CPC, to permit deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- and requested to raise the attachment and set aside the auction dated 16-10-2004. The Labour Court on hearing Respondent No. 2 dismissed the same, holding that there is no rule to permit judgment debtor to deposit the amount in installments. The order also stated that sale of the property can only be set aside on deposit of specific amount under proclamation of sale together with the amount equivalent to 5% of the purchased amount. 3.2. It is also stated, on 08-06-2005, Labour Court had permitted Respondent No.3 to submit demand drafts for Rs. 4,48,200/- in place of the cheques issued by Respondent No.3 earlier on the directions of the Advocate Commissioner. The demand drafts submitted by Respondent No.3 bearing Nos. 046297 and 046298, both dated 08-06-2005 were filed for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.2,23,500/- respectively drawn at SBI to Medak District, totalling Rs. 4,48,200/- in place of the cheques issued by Respondent No.3 earlier on the directions of the Advocate Commissioner. The demand drafts submitted by Respondent No.3 bearing Nos. 046297 and 046298, both dated 08-06-2005 were filed for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.2,23,500/- respectively drawn at SBI to Medak District, totalling Rs. 4,48,500/-; demand drafts were obtained from the very same bank wherein cheques issued to the Advocate Commissioner on 16-10-2004. 3.3. Subsequently, as per the time granted by Respondent No. 1 in E.A. No. 22 of 2005, Petitioners on 15-06-2025 deposited Rs. 3,86,065/- towards the amount specified in the proclamation of sale together with an amount of Rs.22,410/- a sum equivalent of Rs. 5% of purchase money on receipt of the same, the Learned Labour Court set aside the auction sale held on 16-10-2004 and directed the refund of the purchase money paid by the auction purchaser i.e. Respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the order dated 15-06-2005, Respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 contending that earlier, Respondent No.2 filed E.A. No. 49 of 2005, under Order XXI Rule 89 C.P.C. praying to set aside the sale and the same was dismissed by the Labour Court, and that E.A. No. 22 of 2005 is barred by principles of res judicata. It was also contended that the said Application was filed beyond the prescribed period of 60 days as contemplated under the Limitation Act. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 03-03-2006 with the following observations: "At the outset it is to be noted that E.A.No.22 of 2005 was filed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC but not under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC. Order XXI Rule 90 CPC provides for setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud. In E.A.No.22 of 2005, the second respondent company (petitioner therein) made various allegations alleging that the sale held by the Commissioner on 16-10-2004 was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the same was vitiated on account of several irregularities. Strangely the Court below without issuing any notice to the auction purchaser and without recording any finding that the sale was vitiated on the ground of irregularities or fraud, set aside the sale merely recording the fact that the second respondent company (petitioner therein) has deposited the sum equal to 5% of purchase money. Strangely the Court below without issuing any notice to the auction purchaser and without recording any finding that the sale was vitiated on the ground of irregularities or fraud, set aside the sale merely recording the fact that the second respondent company (petitioner therein) has deposited the sum equal to 5% of purchase money. The said procedure adopted by the Court below is erroneous and not in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC In the circumstances, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner and L deem it appropriate to set aside the order under challenge dated 15-06- 2005 and to direct the Court below to consider E.A.No.22 of 2005 and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent and the respondents 3 to 21 herein. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to raise all the objections available under law including that the petition is barred by the principle of res judicata before the Court below, in which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. It is also made clear that it is open to the respondents 3 to 21 to make an application seeking permission to withdraw the amounts which are in deposit, in which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law.” 3.4. On remand, the Labour Court, after providing an opportunity to all the parties as directed by this Court, held that the auction conducted by the Advocate-Commissioner on 16-10-2004 was done so in accordance with law and further held that E.A. No. 22 of 2005 was not filed within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of sale; similarly, E.A. No. 40 of 2005 was also not filed within 30 days from the date of sale which is as per Articles 125, 126 and 127 of the Limitation Act. Pursuant to the order dated 15-05-2006, the Labour Court issued Sale Certificate dated 22-05-2006 in favour of Respondent No.3 confirming the auction sale conducted on 16-10-2004. Pursuant to the order dated 15-05-2006, the Labour Court issued Sale Certificate dated 22-05-2006 in favour of Respondent No.3 confirming the auction sale conducted on 16-10-2004. After dismissal of E.A. No. 22 of 2005, petitioners filed E.A. No. 38 of 2006 as a third-party under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC claiming that they are bona fide purchasers of scheduled property; the Labour Court had framed an issue in E.A. No. 38 of 2006 as to whether petitioners are bona fide purchasers of this schedule property, and if so, whether they are entitled to any notice before confirmation of sale in favour of auction purchaser – Respondent No.3 after a complete evidentiary hearing. Exs. A-1 to 5 were marked on behalf of Petitioner and Exs. B-1 to 20 were marked on behalf of Respondent/auction purchaser. The Labour Court disposed of E.A. No. 38 of 2006 vide order dated 20-12-2006, while referring to Sections 64 and 65 CPC holding that petitioners are pendent lite purchasers and not bona fide purchasers, hence are not entitled for any notice before confirmation of sale in favour of auction purchasers as they are third-party to E.P. proceedings and dismissed the impugned order. 4. The Labour Court observed that writ petitioners purchased the scheduled property from Respondent No.2 - Judgment Debtor during pendency of Execution Petition proceedings and while the attachment was in force, it was during the attachment period, property had been sold in a public auction by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court on 16-10-2004; it is an admitted case that Writ Petitioners claim to have purchased scheduled property along with other properties of JDR on 17-06-2005, order dated 15-06-2005 passed in E.A. No. 22 of 2005 permitting Respondent No.2 to deposit Rs.3,86,065/- and on such deposit, auction was held on 16-10-2004 by the advocate commissioner was set aside, and soon after the said order passed by the Labour court, Writ Petitioners purchased scheduled property under four registered sale deeds directly from J.DR. under a private sale without the attachment having been raised or satisfaction having been recorded by Labour Court. 4.1. under a private sale without the attachment having been raised or satisfaction having been recorded by Labour Court. 4.1. It is a categorical finding of the learned Labour court that the order dated 15-06-2005 setting aside the auction had not attained finality and in fact, the 3rd Respondent had filed W.P. No.13196 of 2005 and got suspended the order of the labour Court dated 15-06-2005 vide order dated 03-03-2006, further more when the Writ Petition was disposed of setting aside the order of the learned labor Court in E.A. No. 22 of 2005 dated 15-06-2005 and there is no order of the 1st respondent raising the attachment of the property which was affected on 11-12-2003. The attachment order is still continuing in force. So also the attachment which was made, on account of the order dated 15-06-2005 being set aside in Writ Petition No.13196 of 2005, continued to be in force. 4.2. It was further held that Writ petitioners having deposited the amount as per the order dated 15-06-2005 in E.A. No. 22 of 2005, in a hurried manner, got the four sale deeds registered in their favour on 17-06-2005 which was within two days; it therefore, appeared to Labour court that the petitioners were aware about the entire E.P. proceedings but did not get Impleaded in the E.P. proceedings or in the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.3 before the High Court. 4.3. In Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005, Respondent No.3 had sought to implead Petitioners herein, however, this Court had not taken any cognizance of their presence in the Writ Petition and disposed of the matter on merits, directing the Labour court to hear all the parties to the EP. proceedings afresh by giving opportunity to Respondents 1 and 2 as well as the workers namely Respondents 3 to 21 therein only, it was also observed that in the order dated 03-03-2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005, there is no direction to serve notice on petitioners herein, that there is no question of issuing any notice to Petitioners herein as they have not been made part of the E.P. proceedings. 4.4. 4.4. `While answering the question as to whether Petitioners are bona fide purchasers of schedule property, Labour Court had rightly pointed out that there was no agreement of sale between Respondent No.2 and Petitioners for sale of the property, neither was any public notice expressing their intention to purchase the scheduled property published, purchase made by petitioners was only during the pendency of E.P. proceedings and while attachment made by Labour court was in force, no steps were taken by them to raise the attachment, hence the transactions between petitioners and Respondent No.2 was hit by Sections 64 and 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If such a sale was bona fide, Respondent No.2 - Judgment Debtor, at best, ought to have requested Labour Court for postponement of sale under Order XXI Rule 83 of CPC to enable Respondent No.2 to raise the amount of award/decree by way of private sale of property which has not been done by Judgment Debtor, hence nothing shall apply to the sale of the property held by Labour court in execution of the decree in pursuance of the charge against such property by way of sale. With all these observations, the learned Labour Court dismissed the Application of Petitioners holding that they are not entitled to any notice being third party to the proceedings. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sunil B. Ganu appearing on behalf of Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for petitioners submits that on payment of the entire proclamation of sale amount ie. Rs. 3,86,065/- and an additional amount of Rs. 22,410/- ie. sum equal to 5% of purchase money, the earlier auction conducted on 16-10-2004 was set aside while observing that auction purchaser was entitled to refund of part purchase consideration paid along with 5% of auction money by order passed by the Labour Court dated 15-06-2005. Rs. 3,86,065/- and an additional amount of Rs. 22,410/- ie. sum equal to 5% of purchase money, the earlier auction conducted on 16-10-2004 was set aside while observing that auction purchaser was entitled to refund of part purchase consideration paid along with 5% of auction money by order passed by the Labour Court dated 15-06-2005. He contends that as on 15-06-2005, as there was no confirmation of sale, Respondent No.2 was entitled to offer to pay the entire amount due to the decree holders, as specified in proclamation of sale along with 5% of purchase money as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 89 C.P.C. In the instant case, judgment debtor not only paid the entire amount, as specified in the proclamation of sale along with 5% of purchase money, but also the mortgage amount payable to South Indian Bank Ltd as well as other amounts due to decree holders. The entire property ad- measuring Ac. 8.00, including the subject property admeasuring Acs. 2-03 guntas, which was the subject matter of the auction was purchased by Petitioners through four sale deeds dated 17-06-2005. 5.1. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that purchase made by Petitioners was not in violation of Section 64 C.P.C. as the said private transfer was on due satisfaction of the decree as well as mortgage amount. He draws attention to Order XXI Rule 55 of Code and contends that there shall be automatic deemed removal of attachment after satisfaction of degree while citing the same as under: “ Order XXI Rule 55: 55. Removal of attachment after satisfaction of decree. Where- (a) the amount decreed with costs and all charges and expenses resulting from the attachment of any property are paid into Court, or (b) satisfaction of the decree is otherwise made through the Court or certified to the Court, or (c) the decree is set aside or reversed, the attachment shall be deemed to be withdrawn, and, in the case of immovable property, the withdrawal shall, if the judgment-debtor so desires, be proclaimed at his expense, and a copy of the proclamation shall be affixed in the manner prescribed by the last preceding rule.” 5.2. Learned Senior Counsel primarily contends that there was no confirmation of sale in favour of Respondent No. 3 and he had not paid/deposited the entire sale consideration as agreed in the auction conducted on 16-10-2004, nor possession was delivered. Learned Senior Counsel primarily contends that there was no confirmation of sale in favour of Respondent No. 3 and he had not paid/deposited the entire sale consideration as agreed in the auction conducted on 16-10-2004, nor possession was delivered. He further contents that Respondent No.2 was entitled to deposit/pay the entire decretal amount as provided under Order XXI Rule 89 as there was no confirmation of sale and the subject land purchased by Petitioners by payment of entire proclamation consideration along with purchase money was permissible under law in such circumstances. In addition to the above, petitioners had redeemed the mortgage with South Indian Bank Ltd. and released the property, whereas Respondent No.3 had hesitated to pay the auction purchase consideration in view of the said subsisting mortgage. Learned Senior Counsel relies on Kharaitilal v. R. Kaur , 2000 (3) SCC 664 , Raghavan v. V. Siva Kumar , 2023 SCC Online Madras 6677, G. Jagannadhan v. T. Ramabrahman, 1918 SCC Online Madras 345, C.H. Gowda v. M.R. Tirumala, MANU/SC/1002/2003 to support his arguments. 5.3. According to learned Senior Counsel, the findings of the Labour Court that petitioners are not bona fide purchasers is incorrect and petitioners, who were necessary parties to Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 were naturally necessary parties to the proceedings taken up by Respondent No.1 and the order passed behind the back of Petitioners by Respondent No.1 on 15-05-2006 is non-est in law. In support of his arguments, he relies on Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhendi (D), 2022 SCC Online SC 1307 and D.B. Gupta v. N.L. Anand, 1994 (1) SCC 131 . 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 - Auction Purchaser Sri Vivek Jain submits argues that petitioners are nothing but pendente lite purchasers and have no locus to challenge the Execution Proceedings as per Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC and also due to the fact that attachment order dated 11-12-2003 was still in force at the time of private sale between judgment debtor and Petitioners, as rightly held by the Labour Court while citing Order XXI Rule 102: “ 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 the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person." 6.1. It was further submitted that the Labour Court had rightly held that private sale done by judgment debtor when attachment of property was still in force would be hit by Sections 64 and 65 CPC, which are extracted as under: “ Section 64. Private alienation of property after attachment to be void. (1) Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein, made in pursuance of any contract for such transfer or delivery entered into and registered before the attachment. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, claims enforceable under an attachment include claims for the rateable distribution of assets.” Section 65: Purchaser's title: Where immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold and not from the time when the sale becomes absolute”. 6.2. Learned Counsel further contends that there is no direction given in Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 to serve any notice to these Petitioners; title of petitioners was virtually dependent on the title of Respondent No.2 implying that right of the judgment debtor would be based only on the outcome of the Execution Proceedings. 6.2. Learned Counsel further contends that there is no direction given in Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 to serve any notice to these Petitioners; title of petitioners was virtually dependent on the title of Respondent No.2 implying that right of the judgment debtor would be based only on the outcome of the Execution Proceedings. It is further submitted that the main findings in the impugned order in E.A. No. 22 of 2005 was that E.A. No.22 of 2005 was not filed within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of sale and likewise, E.A. No. 40 of 2005 was also not filed within 30 days from the date of sale, hence, even the receipt of notice to Petitioners could not have cured the defect in the Application of judgement debtor which challenged the manner of conduct of auction. 6.3. Learned Counsel while disputing the locus of Petitioners on the basis of Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC, relied on the judgment in Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram , (2008) 7 SCC 144 wherein it has been held as under: “17. Rule 102 clarifies that Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 of the Code do not apply to transferee pendente lite. That Rule is relevant and material and may be quoted in extenso: "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 the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person." Bare reading of the Rule makes it clear that it is based on justice, equity and good conscience. A transferee from a judgment- debtor is presumed to be aware of the proceedings before a court of law. He should be careful before he purchases the property which is the subject-matter of litigation. It recognises the doctrine of lis pendens recognised by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Rule 102 of Order 21 of the Code thus takes into account the ground reality and refuses to extend helping hand to purchasers of property in respect of which litigation is pending. It recognises the doctrine of lis pendens recognised by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Rule 102 of Order 21 of the Code thus takes into account the ground reality and refuses to extend helping hand to purchasers of property in respect of which litigation is pending. If unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree-holder will never be able to realise the fruits of his decree. Every time the decree-holder seeks a direction from a court to execute the decree, the judgment-debtor or his transferee will transfer the property and the new transferee will offer resistance or cause obstruction. To avoid such a situation, the Rule has been enacted. 25. We are in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by this Court in Silverline Forum [ (1998) 3 SCC 723 ]. In our opinion, the doctrine is based on the principle that the person purchasing property from the judgment-debtor during the pendency of the suit has no independent right to property to resist, obstruct or object execution of a decree. Resistance at the instance of transferee of a judgment-debtor during the pendency of the proceedings cannot be said to be resistance or obstruction by a person in his own right and, therefore, is not entitled to get his claim adjudicated”. 6.4. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment in Ramesh Gaikwad v. N.S. Prakasham , 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 470 to further his argument wherein it has been held thus: “21. Ultimately there from that the transferee from a J. Dr. is presumed to be aware of the proceedings before a Court of law as recognized by the doctrine of lis pendence under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and consequently Rule 102 of Order 21 CPC and if unfair equitable or undeserved protection is afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree holder will never be able to realize the fruits of decree and thereby not entitled to any protection under law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 6.5. Learned counsel also submits that during execution proceedings, when an attachment of property has been ordered, the said attachment would remain in force until the money deposited in satisfaction of the decree was disposed of by the court by paying it to the decree holder. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 6.5. Learned counsel also submits that during execution proceedings, when an attachment of property has been ordered, the said attachment would remain in force until the money deposited in satisfaction of the decree was disposed of by the court by paying it to the decree holder. In support of the said contention, he relies on Harohi Kesh v. Ghulam Haider Khan, AIR 1940 Oudh 360 . It has been held therein as under: “3. These words occur in clause (a) of Section 7(1) of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The argument is that the attachment ceased to exist the moment the money was received from the Court of Wards by the execution Court on 16th September 1936, and the attachment was no longer in force. The learned Judge of this Court held that this view was incorrect and the attachment was in force till the money was disposed of by the Court by paying it to the decree-holder or otherwise. The object of the Encumbered Estates Act is to give relief to indebted landlords, and S. 4 of the Act provides for an application by a landlord to obtain the benefit of the Act. S. 6 provides for acceptance of the application by the Collector and transmission of it to the Special Judge, and S. 7 lays down the consequences of the acceptance of that application by the Collector. The principle of S. 7 is to put a stop to proceedings of all kinds in respect of public or private debts of the landlord pending at the date in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces and reserve all questions in respect of those debts to be decided by the Special Judge, and further to provide against any fresh proceeding or suit, etc., against the landlord till the matter has been disposed of finally by the Collector. By this Act the Legislature vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Special Judge to determine all matters relating to the debts of the landlord and the properties owned by him and in the Collector the liquidation of debts and administration of the landlord's property, and this exclusive jurisdiction in the Special Judge and the Collector arises on an order under S. 6 being passed by the Collector. It is therefore clear that the money which was in the hands of the Court of Wards of Gonda and belonged to the judgment-debtor, after the order of the Collector under S. 6, could not but be administered by the Collector. To hold, that the provisions of S. 7(1) did not apply to the proceedings pending in the execution Court in respect of that money would be to defeat the spirit and the provisions of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. 4. The learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the provisions of O. 21, R. 55 of the CPC, and has urged that as in the case of a decree for money, as soon as the decretal amount is paid into Court, the attachment of any property in execution of that decree is automatically removed, so as soon as the person in whose hands the money belonging to the judgment-debtor is attached pays that money into Court the attachment ceases. We do not see any analogy between the point involved in this case and the point dealt with in O. 21, R. 55 of the CPC. We are in complete agreement with the view of our learned brother that the attachment of money must be deemed to continue so long as that money which is brought into Court by attachment is not disposed of by the Court attaching that money. To take any other view would be to hold that all objections to wrongful attachment would not be maintainable in the Court attaching the amount simply on the ground that after the money was deposited the attachment ceased to exist. The learned counsel for the respondent informs us that the money was deposited by the Court of Wards under protest and the question of title to that money or the right of the decree- holder to attach it is still pending adjudication in the execution Court. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.” The Court in the case supra held that attachment of money must be deemed to continue so long as that money which is brought into Court by attachment is not disposed of by the Court to the decree holder. 6.6. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.” The Court in the case supra held that attachment of money must be deemed to continue so long as that money which is brought into Court by attachment is not disposed of by the Court to the decree holder. 6.6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 further submits that a similar view was also taken by a Bench of Allahabad High Court in Sri Om Prakash Beri & Co. v. Ashfaq Ahmad, 2009 SCC OnLine All 793 wherein a similar issue was dealt with: “9. In the stay order, no permission to execute the sale was granted. Accordingly, property could not be sold under the said stay order. Moreover under the said stay order, it was not provided that the amount of Rs. 6 lacs to be deposited thereunder would be withdrawn by the decree holders. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the deposit of the said amount amounted to payment to decree holder and by virtue of Order 21 Rule 55, C.P.C., attachment automatically stood withdrawn thereupon. 11. All interim orders merge in the final order and after final decision/disposal of the case in whatever manner it may be interim orders passed therein do not remain in existence. If a case is dismissed either on merit or otherwise, anything done under interim order passed therein will have to be reversed unless in the judgment finally deciding the case such actions are saved. When sale deed was executed in favour of Sahakari Samiti on 02.09.1983, attachment was continuing. Accordingly, by virtue of Section 64, C.P.C., the sale is void. Even in the sale deed it is mentioned that the properties were under attachment. Section 64, C.P.C. is quoted below: "Private Alienation of Property after attachment to be void Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment." 6.7. In summary, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that conjoint reading of Sections 64 and 65 with Order XXI Rule 102 CPC would non-suit Petitioners from any claim as their right had accrued pendent lite which was dependant on the right of Judgment Debtor, as such, there is no merit in the argument of Petitioners which would make them entitled to notice in Execution Proceedings as rightly held by the Labour Court. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A. Venkatesh appearing on behalf of Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 4 to 8 submits that Respondent No.3 - auction purchaser had alienated the property in favour of Respondents 4 to 8 during the pendency of the above Writ Petition through registered Sale Deeds as there was no order of stay of suspension of the impugned order. He argues that attachment continues till the property is sold by auction and any sale during subsistence of attachment order by Executing Court was void (See C.S. Mani (Deceased) by LRs. C.S. Dhanapalan Vs. B. Chinnasamy Naidu (Deceased) by LRs. AIR 2010 SC 3600 ). 8. The submissions of learned counsel for Respondents 4to 8 cannot travel beyond the case of auction purchaser and at best, the submissions on point of law made by learned Senior Counsel appearing are to be taken into consideration, while considering the case of auction purchaser. 9. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners Sri Sunil B. Ganu submits that in the chronology of list of dates filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3, it remains silent as to when the total sale amount was finally deposited by the auction purchaser and if provisions of Order XXI Rule 84 and 85 were met or not. He further submits that on the date when the amount along with 5% of purchase amount was paid into court, there was no confirmation of sale made in favour of Respondent No.3, also as on the date when the four sale deeds executed in favour of petitioner, legally and factually, there was no attachment subsisting on the property or any person in view of Order XXI Rule 55 of CPC.; there was no confirmation of sale as on 15-06-2005 and 17-06-2005, hence, there can be no question of application of Order XXI Rule 102 to the present set of facts. 9.1. 9.1. Learned counsel further contends that in the absence of an order confirming the sale auction in favour of Respondent No.3 by the executing court, as on 15-06-2005 and 17-06-2005, the sale was not made absolute in the name of Respondent No.3 more so when the provisions of Order XXI Rule 84 and 85 were not met. Learned Senior Counsel relied on judgments in Abdul Ubedulla v. Noorjahn , (2014) 3 KCCR 2056 and Kancherla Lakshminarayana v. Mattaparthi Shyamala, (2008) 14 SCC 258 . 10. Before entering the question of law raised in the present case, it is essential to settle the facts and sequence of events. It is an undisputed fact that in order to execute the award of the Labour Court for realisation of wages of workmen, E.P. No. 25 of 2003 was filed by the workmen; there was an attachment made over the scheduled property/subject property on 11-12-2003, the Advocate Commissioner took out paper publication on 09-10-2004 and 14-10-2004 regarding the action being conducted on 16-10-2004. As can be seen from writ affidavit in Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005, at para 5, on 08-06-2005, the Labour Court had permitted Respondent No.3 to submit demand drafts for Rs. 4,48,200/- in place of the cheques issued by Respondent No.3 earlier on the directions of the Advocate Commissioner on the day of auction i.e. 16-10-2004, demand drafts submitted by Respondent No.3 bearing Nos. 046297 and 046298, both dated 08-06-2005 were filed before Labour Court for Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.2,23,500/- respectively drawn at SBI to Medak District totalling Rs. 4,48,500/-; demand drafts were obtained from the very same bank wherein cheques issued to Advocate-Commissioner on 16-10-2004. Writ petitioners filed counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 wherein they had taken a stand that until the Court which attached the property did not confirm the sale under the auction, the auction sale would not be absolute. This would clearly demonstrate that petitioners were aware that entire auction sale amount was deposited before Labour Court by Respondent No.3 prior to them depositing the sale proclamation amount on 15-06-2005, hence, it can be held that Respondent No.3 had paid the entire sale consideration as agreed in the auction conducted on 16-10-2004, which was received by Labour Court. 11. This would clearly demonstrate that petitioners were aware that entire auction sale amount was deposited before Labour Court by Respondent No.3 prior to them depositing the sale proclamation amount on 15-06-2005, hence, it can be held that Respondent No.3 had paid the entire sale consideration as agreed in the auction conducted on 16-10-2004, which was received by Labour Court. 11. Another point that can be gathered from the contentions from the counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 is that there is no dispute as to the factum of remittance of amount by Respondent No. 3 was ever raised and secondly, by the date of filing of Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005, Petitioners were aware that though the actual payment was deposited, the procedural confirmation was not there. In such circumstances, Petitioners who otherwise do not have locus in terms of Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, cannot be allowed to take advantage of procedural compliance defeating the rights of a person who made payment of the entire amount as per auction sale. 12. Another submission made by learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners is that chronology of list of dates filed by Respondent No. 3 was silent on whether the total sale amount was finally deposited by the auction purchasers in compliance with Order XXI Rule 84 and 85 CPC. Reverting to the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2005 at para 6, there is clear disclosure that pursuant to the sale conducted on 16-10-2004, Respondent No.3 had submitted cheque bearing No. 346572 dated 10-11-2004 for Rs.2,23,200/- which was the balance purchase money before the Labour Court, which was also acknowledged by the Court; thereafter, South Indian Bank Ltd. had filed Writ Petition No. 11316 of 2004 challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court in E.A. No. 52 of 2004 in E.P. No.25 of 2003 in M.P. No. 79 of 2002 wherein sale of subject property was ordered. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition at the admission stage by holding that it is always open to the bank to take appropriate steps to recover the debts from the secured property, which is sought to be sold by proving its claim before the Labour Court as the said Court did not order payment of sale proceedings to the unofficial respondent - decree holders. 13. 13. Admittedly, on 09-02-2005, Respondent No.2 - judgment debtor filed E.A. No. 22 of 2005 before the Labour Court under Order XXI Rule 90 to set aside the auction sale conducted on 16-10-2004, likewise, E.A. No. 40 of 2005 was also filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to permit Respondent No.2 to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs and requested to raise the attachment and set aside the auction. The Labour Court dismissed E.A. No. 40 of 2005 by order dated 07-06-2005, holding that there is no rule to permit deposit of decretal amount in installments, pursuant to which on 04-06-2005, Respondent No. 2 had made another representation in E.A. 22 of 2005 to grant time for depositing proclamation amount together with purchased money, accordingly, the Labour Court, without giving notice to Respondent No.3, had granted time for one day and posted the matter to the next day that is 15-06-2005, on which date, petitioners deposited Rs.3,86,065/- towards the amount specified for proclamation of sale with an amount of Rs.22,410/- + a sum equivalent of 5% of purchased money. What is discerned is that by 15-06-2005, auction purchaser - 3rd Respondent had made complete payment of auction sale, which would render the sale completed, the very fact that after conclusion of auction on 16-10-2004, several challenges to the auction were made under Order XXI Rule 90 by South Indian Bank, and by the judgment debtor in separate Applications would clearly show why the conditions under Rules 84 and 85 could not have been met as per the timeline mentioned therein, but, at no point in time, a contention was raised that entire sale proceeds were not deposited. Further, the facts of the present case would fall under the proviso of Order XXI Rule 92, which provides that where any property is sold in execution of decree pending the final disposal of any claim or any objection to the attachment of such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection. Order XXI Rule 92 is extracted hereunder: “ Order XXI Rule 92. Order XXI Rule 92 is extracted hereunder: “ Order XXI Rule 92. Sale when to become absolute or be set aside: (1) Where no application is made under rule 89, rule 90 or rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute: Provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection. (2) Where such application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application-under Rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within 60 (sixty days) from the date of sale, or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale: Provided that no order shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby: Provided further that the deposit under this sub-rule may be made within sixty days in all such cases where the period of thirty days, within which the deposit had to be made, has not expired before the commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. (3) No suit to set aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made. (4) Where a third party challenges the judgment-debtor's title by filing a suit against the auction purchaser, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit. (5) If the suit referred to in sub-rule (4) is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree-holder to refund the money to the auction- purchaser, and where such an order is passed the execution proceeding in which the sale had been held shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be revived at the stage at which the sale was ordered”. 14. (5) If the suit referred to in sub-rule (4) is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree-holder to refund the money to the auction- purchaser, and where such an order is passed the execution proceeding in which the sale had been held shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be revived at the stage at which the sale was ordered”. 14. Therefore, the question of non-payment of the entire auction amount was never a dispute, further so, as seen from the above discussion, payments were actually made as permitted by Respondent No. 1, thus the point is answered in favour of Respondent No. 3 as to payment. On the aspect of non-confirmation of sale, in view of the discussion above, non- confirmation of sale will not come in the way of Respondent No. 3 since complete payment was made and confirmation being only procedural in the view of this Court will not defeat the rights of Respondent No. 3 who is a bona fide auction purchaser. 15. Coming to the question as to whether petitioners are bona fide purchasers of subject land, as already discussed above, Respondent No.3 had made entire payment through demand drafts on 08-06-2005 replacing the cheques issued on 16-10-2004 and 10-11-2004 with the permission of the Labour Court. Therefore, the contention of Petitioners that deposit of proclamation sale amount along with 5% of purchase money made on 15-06-2005 would automatically deem the attachment order to be lifted and that sale made within two days of that on 17-06-2005 in favour of petitioners by the judgment debtor is a bona fide purchase by placing reliance on Order XXI Rule 55, in the considered view of this Court, this provision cannot come to the rescue of petitioners, against whom even the Labour court found that in a hurried manner Respondent No.2 /JDR had executed sale deeds even before the order dated 15-06-2005 could have attained finality and the very fact that sale happened before the end of the limitation period in which any person could have challenged the said order would render the sale hit by Sections 64 and 65 of CPC. The judgments in Harohi Kesh (supra) and Sri Om Prakash Beri (supra) have rightly held that attachment would not cease as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 55 of CPC until the money was disposed of by the Court by paying it to the decree holder. 16. The judgments in Harohi Kesh (supra) and Sri Om Prakash Beri (supra) have rightly held that attachment would not cease as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 55 of CPC until the money was disposed of by the Court by paying it to the decree holder. 16. Petitioners, having obtained rights from Respondent /Judgment Debtor, without the Execution proceedings attaining finality, more so when the said order of receiving the sale proclamation amount dated 15-06-2005 was set aside by this Court vide order dated 03-03-2006, as E.A. No. 22 of 2005 was filed challenging the auction proceedings, that on remand, Respondent No.1 upheld the auction conducted on 16-10-2004 vide order dated 15-05-2006 would clearly show that petitioners are lis pendens purchasers and would be hit by the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of CPC and would not have locus to challenge the proceedings as per Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC. The judgments relied by Respondent No.3 in Usha Sinha and Ramesh Gaikwad ’s cases would squarely apply to the present facts of the case. Therefore, even on this point, it is clear that petitioners are not bona fide purchasers. 17. If all the above technicalities are allowed to challenge the valid auction conducted by Respondent No.1 and if it is to be interpreted that Respondent No. 3 who is a bona fide auction purchaser and who paid the entire auction amount, thereby allowing a transferee pendent lite claiming through a judgment debtor who at the original instance did not pay the decretal amounts and thereafter, tried to come up with an Application to pay the amount in installments through Petitioners and as E.A. 40 of 2005 for installments was rejected by Respondent No.1 and thereafter, paid the entire amount much later than the auction purchaser who had paid the entire amount prior, then there will not be any sanctity and finality of any auction sale. 18. The judgments relied on by learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in Kharaitilal v. R. Kaur (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein discusses the provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 and Order 21 Rule 92 in cases of the decree being under challenge in appeal. 18. The judgments relied on by learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in Kharaitilal v. R. Kaur (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein discusses the provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 and Order 21 Rule 92 in cases of the decree being under challenge in appeal. In the present case, there was no Appeal challenging the main award of the Labour court and furthermore, the auction purchaser had made entire payment of sale prior to the deposit made by Petitioners on behalf of judgment debtors. 19. Likewise, in Raghavan v. V. Siva Kumar (supra) , auction was challenged on the ground of fraud and auction purchaser was not initially made party to the proceedings. The case cited would not apply to the present facts as Labour Court had initially allowed deposit of decretal amount under E.A. No. 22 of 2005 which was filed under Order XXI Rule 90 based on plea that there was fraud and irregularities in the conduct of the auction dated 16-10-2004, however, this was not an Application under Order XXI Rule 83 wherein extension of time for deposit of money was prayed. Respondent No.2 /judgment debtor could have prayed for postponement of sale to enable him raise the amount of the decree, hence, the facts in the case cited would not support petitioners. In the present case, there is no pleading of fraud and no case of fraud is made out and when law stipulates that fraud has to be pleaded and proved, the ratio of the above case laws in the facts of this case would not apply. 20. In G. Jagannadhan v. T. Ramabrahman (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with as to the weather a private purchaser from judgment debtor could challenge the Court auction under Order XXI Rule 89, in the facts of the present case, no Application was filed by petitioners under Order XXI Rule 89 and furthermore, the present judgment does not examine the applicability of Order XXI Rule 102 on the locus of a third-party purchaser from the judgment debtor pending the execution proceedings. 21. 21. Likewise, the judgments in C.H. Gowda v. M.R. Tirumala and Ravindranath v. Panna Lal (supra) are inapplicable for the reason that deposit made by Respondent No.3 was within the time line permitted by the Labour Court and the judgment debtor having failed to pay the amount and having come up to seek installments to pay the decretal amounts long after payments were made by a bona fide auction purchasers, cannot have any ground to complain. 22. The judgment in Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhendi (supra) is a case of specific performance and the matter pertained to non-joiner of co-owners/co- parcerners. In the present case, Respondent No.2 - Judgment Debtor through whom petitioners claimed title, were made party and given notice. The principles of lis pendens and transferee pendent lite and specific bar under Order XXI Rule 102 are clearly applicable in the present case to the above ratio. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.B. Gupta v. N.L. Anand (supra) holds that service of notice on judgment debtor is a fundamental part of the procedure touching upon the jurisdiction of the Execution Court, but, in the present case, Respondent No.2 through whom Petitioners claim their right was given notice and heard, hence this case would not come to the rescue of Petitioners. Even otherwise, when there is a direct statutory bar taking away the locus of a transferee pendent lite in terms of Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC, general principles cannot be applied to overcome express provision of law. 24. The judgment in Abdul Ubedulla v. Noorjahan, (2014) 3 KCCR 2056 would not apply to the facts of the present case, as, admittedly, there were challenges to the auction conducted on 16-10-2004, hence based on the proviso of Order XXI Rule 92, the sale certificate in favour of Respondent No.3 who made the entire sale payment could not be confirmed. 25. As already discussed above, pursuant to the order dated 15-05-2006, Respondent No.1 Sale Certificate dated 22-05-2006 in favour of Respondent No.3, confirming the auction sale conducted on 16-10-2004, the order allowing the JDR to deposit decretal amount dated 15-06-2005 was set-aside by this Court, hence the provisions of Order XXI Rule 58 would not bestow a right onto Petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. 26. This Court, having heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that Petitioners cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers of subject property as, admittedly, their claim is of a pendent lite transferee, albeit claimed to have accrued during the pendency of Execution proceedings, which is hit by Order XXI Rule 102 CPC. The other objection as to non-confirmation of sale would be a mere technicality in view of the entire payment having made by Respondent No.3 - auction purchaser within the time permitted by Respondent No.1 - Labour Court and much before by Petitioners who are claiming through Judgment Debtor. 27. Therefore objecting for formal confirmation of sale on technicalities cannot defeat substantial rights of an auction purchaser more so when sale certificate dated 22-05-2006 was already executed in favour of auction purchaser and thus, amounts paid by the auction purchasers will confer lawful rights with respect of the property in favour of Respondent No. 3. Judgment Debtor did not prefer any challenge to the impugned order, thus a transferee pendent lite cannot claim a better right than Judgment Debtor. 28. In view of the above discussion the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 29. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.