K.C Gupta, J.:— This revision petition is directed by the objector Minakshi Saini and Rajeev Saini against Gurcharan Singh Bharam and others-decree holders against the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby their appeal was dismissed and the order dated 2.5.2001, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ludhiana, vide which their objections were dismissed was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that in a suit Gurcharan Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh, a preliminary decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, on 29.8.1980 and it was declared that the property in dispute was jointly owned and possession by the parties thereto to the extent of ⅛th share each. An appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree dated 29.8.1980 was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, on 7.4.1983, On 29.11.1994, a final decree was passed. In order to secure possession in terms of that final decree, an execution applications was filed on 9.3.1996 Warrants of possession were issued by the Executing Court which were resisted. Gurcharan Singh etc. decree-holders moved an application to the Executing Court for execution of the warrants of possession with the police help. At that stage, Smt. Minakshi Saini and her son Rajeev Saini filed objections to the issuance of the warrants of possession.

3. The objectors stated that Smt. Pushpa Singh was the owner in possession of the property in dispute who appointed Karnail Singh as her attorney to manage and sell the disputed property vide registered deed dated 22.1.1990 On the basis of that power of attorney., Karnail Singh sold the suit property through three separate registered sale deed dated 30.7.1992 to the objectors and also delivered possession and thus the objector became owner in possession of the suit property. Kamaljit Singh-decree holder No. 6 became tenant in a portion of the property under them. However, Gurcharan Singh etc. decree-holders attempted to take forcible possession and threatened to dispossess them and their tenant. They further stated that earlier a suit was filed by Pushpa Singh for declaration and injunction against the decree holders as well as the judgment-debtor to the effect that she was the exclusive owner in possession on the basis of the will dated 19.3.1972 executed by her mother-in-law Smt. Ram Kaur and the said suit was decree ex-parte by Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated 10.10.1988 and after that decree Smt. Pushpa Singh through her attorney sold the suit property to the Objectors and as such, they prayed that the objection petition be accepted and the execution application be dismissed.

4. Decree-holders Gurcharan Singh etc. filed reply to the objections and stated that neither Smt. Pushpa Singh, nor the objectors had any right, title or interest in the property in dispute. They further stated that the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1980 was passed in their favour wherein it was clearly heldby the Sub Judge 1st Class, that Smt. Ram Kaur did not execute any will in favour of Smt. Pushpa Singh. The said judgment and decree was confirmed by the then Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 7.4.1983 Smt. Pushpa Singh had taken part in those proceedings as attorney of her husband Iqbal Singh. It was further averred that after having lost the litigation, Smt. Pushpa Singh fraudulently obtained an ex-parte decree from Sub Judge, Ludhiana, by giving wrong addresses of the decree-holders regarding which an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, for setting aside the ex-parte decree had been filed which was pending. They next stated that Smt. Pushpa Singh had even filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C for becoming a party during the pendency of the case for passing the firm) decree which was dismissed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Ludhiana, and it was clearly held that the decree in favour Smt. Pushpa Singh was nothing but a complete forgery. Since, Smt. Pushpa Singh had sold the property to the objectors during the pendency of the proceedings for passing the final decree, so, the sale deeds were hit by the principle of lis-pendence i.e Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such the objections should be dismissed.

5. The Executing Court dismissed the objections vide judgment dated 2.5.2001 The objectors filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 19.10.2001 by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

6. Still dissatisfied, the objectors have filed the present revision petition.

7. I have heard counsel for the petitioners Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate along with Mr. M.L Saggar, Advocate, Mr. Amit Rawal Advocate, counsel for the Ca-veator-respondents and carefully gone through the file.

8. The facts of the case as stated by the decree-holders/respondents are that Smt. Ram Kaur expired on 16.6.1972 while her husband Hari Singh expired on 19.2.1977 After the death of Smt. Ram Kaur, the original owner of the suit property, it was inherited by her all natural heirs. A suit for partition was brought by her legal representatives. Iqbal Singh husband of Smt. Pushpa Singh contested the suit through his wife who acted as his attorney. The will set up by Sh. Iqbal Singh and Smt. Pushpa Singh purportedly executed by Smt. Ram Kaur was disbelieved being forged and a fabricated document. Consequently a preliminary decree was passed on 29.9.1980 An appeal filed was also dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana on 7.4.1983 The final decree was passed on 29.11.1994 Despite being aware that the suit of Gurcharan Singh etc. had been decreed in which a preliminary as well as final decree had been passed and the appeal has also been dismissed and the matter had attained finality, Smt. Pushpa Singh stealthily by concealing the entire history of that litigation brought a suit and by procuring false report by giving wrong addresses of the decree holders, obtained an ex-parte decree in her favour from Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, on 10.10.1988 An application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C for setting aside that ex-parte decree is pending. Thus; Smt. Pushpa Singh obtained that ex-parte decree by playing fraud upon the Court and by concealing the fact that earlier a suit which had been decreed against her husband in which she had contested as General power of attorney of herhusband, the will alleged to be executed by Smt. Ram Kaur her mother-in-law which was set up by her and her husband had been disbelieved and had been held tp be a forged document. It cannot be said that Smt. Pushpa Singh had no knowledge of those proceedings. Rather she had actively taken part in those proceedings and thus, after passing of the ex-parte decree, the alienation of the suit land made by her attorney Karnail Singh is bad in law and is hit by the principle of lis-pendence under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as the proceedings for passing a final decree were pending at that time.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Executing Court had dismissed the objection petition in a perfunctory manner and had not framed issues and gave opportunity to lead evidence. It is true that adjudication in such matters is required to be conducted in terms of Order 21 Rule 98, CPC It has been further contended that the enquiry contemplated under Order XXI Rule 101, CPC, is an extensive one and is a substitute for a suit arid all questions relating to right, title and interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceedings had to be determined by the Executing Court. This has been so held in Avvdppan Pilai v. Raveendranathan, 1992 (2) SCC 218 a judgment from the Kerala High Court. It has also been held by this Court in Charanjit Singh v. Manmohan Singh, 1989 CCC 190 (P&H) that where dispute requires the recording of evidence, issues should be framed and parties be allowed to lead evidence. However, in the present case to my mind, there is no need to frame issues and to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence because the facts are very much clear. There is an attempt on the part of the objectors to prolong the already protracted litigation further into infinity. The decree-holders are trying to execute the decree in their favour for the last 21 years. It has been observed by this Court in Usha Devi… v. Parshadi Lal…, 1988 (2) PLJ 673 and also in another case that need of framing of issues would depend upon the facts, and circumstances of each case; arid it is riot incumbent upon the executing Court that it must put to trial every objection filed in execution proceedings may be frivolous, vexations and delay causing objections can be summarily decided. It has been also held in Som Parkash v. Santosh Rani, 1997 (1) PLR (Punjab) 89 that adjudication of objections does not mean that framing of issues is always necessary for the executing Court and the term ‘adjudication’ as used in Rules does not start and end with the framing of issues but it requires appreciation of the case of the objector and documents in support of such objections. Thus, framing of issues is not always necessary and appreciation of pleadings of the objector and his documents means adjudication. Smt. Pushpa Singh played smart with the Court and fraudulently obtained an ex-parte decree and on the basis of that decree, got the suit property transferred through three sale deeds to the objectors. It is difficult to believe that persons who had brought a suit for partition and were successful in obtaining a decree and had also successfully opposed the appeal would have been so conveniently allowed themselves to be proceeded against ex-parte and to get passed an ex-parte decree against them Rather a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. The judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud upon Court is a nullity and non est in the eye of jaw. Therefore, the decree obtained by Smt. Pushpa Singh cannot come in the way of execution of the decree at the behest of Smt. Pushpa Singh. The objectors had stepped into the shoes of Smt Pushpa Singh and cannot have a better title of the suit property than Smt. Pushpa Singh. Thus, they cannot be held to be bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. Their objections are liable to be dismissed summarily. There is no question that they had purchased the suit property without notice for valuable consideration because pendency of the suit is notice to all of them. Thus, the alienation in favour of the objectors is hit by the principle of lis-pendence as envisaged under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

10. Smt. Pushpa. Singh had been trying to manipulate documents from the very beginning. Initially she manipulated the will and set up the will dated 19.3.1972 alleged to be executed by her mother-in-law Smt. Ram Kaur which was held to be a manipulated document by the Court vide judgment dated 29.9.1980 She even filed an appeal, as attorney of her husband, which was dismissed. She then filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, during the proceedings for passing the final decree, which was dismissed on 29.4.1994 Thus, she was clearly guilty of concealing the material facts from the Court and playing fraud upon Court and as such the ex-pqrte decree in her favour is non est in the eye or law. It has been observed by this Court in Vinod Kumar… v. Dia Wanti…., 2000 (2) RCR 606, as under:—

“Civil Procedure Code, Section 47, Order 21 Rules 97 to 108 - Execution - Objections of stranger to the decree - Purchaser of property after decree - Objecter purchased the suit property after decree Person who transferred the property to the objector had no prima facie title the property after the decree such objections are considered to be frivolous and at the face of it liable to he rejected It is not incumbent upon the executing court that it must put to trial every objection even if prima facie they appear to be frivolous, vexatious and only intended to delay the execution”

11. Therefore, looking from any angle, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.