5.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition filed by the 1st respondent in E.A.No.46 of 2002. A reading of this clearly shows that the 1st respondent herein is a pendente lite purchaser and therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a transferee pending the litigation is clearly barred from offering any resistance or obstruction to the execution of a decree. He further drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of the 1st respondent as P.W.1, wherein the 1st respondent has contended that he had knowledge about the decree obtained by the revision petitioner even as early as on 19.06.2001, when he had filed E.A.No.150 of 2001 in E.P.No.14 of 2001 (marked as Ex.B2 in E.A.No.46 of 2001) to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.14 of 2001 till the disposal of E.P.No.6 of 2001 filed by him for bringing the property for sale. He also pointed out that on the date when the Stay Petition was filed, the properties had not been brought for sale and therefore, the 1st respondent had full knowledge about the decree in favour of the Revision Petitioner and the pendency of E.P.No.14 of 2001, when he purchased the property in the auction sale.
