Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 7, Rule 11 & Sec. 96–Rejection of plaint–Justification–Suit was filed with the prayer that the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit was collusive, invalid, and void, obtained by playing the fraud and it is not binding on them to the extent of their interest–Plaintiffs are the lis pendente purchasers of the suit land–Observation of Trial Court that the plaintiffs had the remedy before the Execution Court–Earlier suit for specific performance filed by the respondent no. 1 against P was decreed ex-parte and petitioner’s applications under Order 1, Rule 10 before the Execution Court were rejected on the ground that they were neither decree-holders nor judgment-debtor–Purchasers pendente lite cannot approach under the Rules 97 to 102 of Order 21 at the stage of execution of the decree–Transfer in favour of petitioners was during the pendency of the earlier suit, therefore, the remedy u/s. 102 was not available to them–Even if, it was available, after rejection of their prayer for impleadment in execution proceedings, fresh suit was not barred under the law–Appellants who are not the party to the previous suit, can challenge the judgment and decree passed in the previous suit in a separately instituted suit asserting their own title including the claim of title derived from a party to the previously instituted suit–Impugned order suffers from the error of law and facts–Set aside and directed to restore the suit on its position holding on the date of rejection.
