18.In the instant case, during the pendency of E.P.No.1 of 2002, the vendor of the claimant, namely, Murugesan, who is the elder son of the original owner one Palanisamy Pulavar, filed an E.A.No.69 of 2003, under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for raising the attachment with respect to the petition schedule property on 17.03.2003. However, the said Murugesan, without prosecuting the same to its logical end, proceeded to sell the petition schedule property through his power of attorney holder, Arumugapandian, in favor of the claimant vide sale deed, (Ex.P3), dated 11.11.2003. While so, on 20.09.2004, the aforesaid E.A filed by Murugesan came to be dismissed on 20.09.2004. Following which, the claimant, that is, the appellant herein, who had stepped into the shoes of his vendor, Murugesan, filed E.A.No. 42 of 2005, for the same cause of action, seeking to raise the attachment with respect to the petition schedule property. The learned First Appellate Court observing that though the action under Order 21 Rule 58(1), is in the nature of an original action, even though the forum prescribed to adjudicate the same is the Execution Court, the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, will have an invitation for his application and thus, Ex.P3 sale deed in favor of the claimant is hit by lis pendens and proceeded to conclude
