preliminary decree on the ground that the learned Civil Court did not decide the shares of the remaining parties at the time of passing of the decree. (ii) Reliance was placed on the well-recognized principle that the executing court cannot go behind the decree nor can it modify the same. Modification can only be carried out by the court which passed the decree. (iii) If there was any defect in service to the predecessor-in-interest of the objector, such ground should have been raised in modification of the decree in appeal, however, such recourse was not taken and instead he filed objections to the execution. 9-SLP(C) 9202-9204 OF 2016(iv) Relying on Usha Sinha v. Dina Sinha6 it was held that per the doctrine of lis pendens, the objector was bound by the decree under execution. Lis pendens on its own is a notice to the purchaser that he is bound by a decree that may be entered in the pending suit. Given that the property was transferred in the name of the objector by his father,