3.The lower Court dismissed the petition on the short ground that the petitioner who is the purchaser of the property, a long time after from the decree in the suit, has no right to question the exparte decree, after several years. Since the petition to set aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.9 of 2010 was dismissed, the application in I.A.No.10 of 2010 was also dismissed as a consequential order. The petitioner is a purchaser of property from the defendant in the suit by a document, dated 23.07.2009. By the time, when the property was sold in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner's vendor had suffered a decree for permanent injunction. From the exparte decree that was passed in the suit, it is evident that the defendants contested the suit by engaging Advocates and did not appear thereafter. The person who had suffered a decree for permanent injunction has sold the property claiming that he is the owner of the property, suppressing the judgment and decree in the suit. The judgment and exparte decree is also binding not only the defendants in the suit, but also the subsequent alienees. The fact that the petitioner had no knowledge about the exparte decree, cannot be taken advantage of him to file a petition to set aside the exparte decree after this length of time. By sale, the petitioner has no right as against the decree holder. In this case, the petitioner has no independent right and he cannot give life to the litigation by acquiring the property, seven years after the decree was passed against his vendors whose right was determined in the suit.
