Hi, 

The stand taken by third party is not valid in eye of law and the execution case is bound to proceed further.

Third party is not bona fide  purchaser 

2) he knew that decree had been passed in 2010 for transfer in name of 3 parties 

3) Supreme Court has held that  that the doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a Court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending, by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the court's power to decide a pending dispute or frustrate its decree. Alienees acquiring any immovable property during pending litigation, are held to be bound by an application of the doctrine, by the decree passed in the suit even though they may not have been impleaded in it. The whole object of the doctrine of lis pendens is to subject parties to the litigation as well as others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property, which are the subject matter of litigation, to the power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated.

If its filed within 12 years it's not hit by law of limitation. Applicability of section 52 of TO Act aplplies in following conditions. 

1. A suit or a proceeding in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question must be pending;
2. The suit or proceeding should be pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction;
3. The suit or the proceeding should not be a collusive one;
4. Litigation must be one in which right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question;
5. Any transfer of such immovable property or any dealing with such property during the pendency of the suit is prohibited except under the authority of Court, if such transfer or otherwise dealing with the property by any party to the suit or proceeding affects the right of any other party to the suit or proceeding under any order or decree which may be passed in the said suit or proceeding.

Hi,

There are numerous judgment of high court and supreme court supporting your cause. First of all is the time limit of filing execution case which is in your favour. Second is getting something illegal done by defendant no. 1 and third is selling of property without proper authority to third party. You may need to present on all these issues the judgments separately.

In Rajender Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors.AIR 1973 SC 2537

 it was observed by the Supreme Court that the doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a Court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending, by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the court's power to decide a pending dispute or frustrate its decree. Alienees acquiring any immovable property during pending litigation, are held to be bound by an application of the doctrine, by the decree passed in the suit even though they may not have been impleaded in it. The whole object of the doctrine of lis pendens is to subject parties to the litigation as well as others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property, which are the subject matter of litigation, to the power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated

1. The version of the purchaser has no force in the eye of law. As long as a remedy is not time bared there is nothing called ' late' or 'eary' execution.

2. So do not worry you will get delivery of possession of the land in the execution proceeding and the third party purchaser having the knowledge of decree can not claim even a single relief on the ground of equity.

3. Where the prvisison of law is clear there is no need for decision to be cited.

The execution petition filed within 12 years from the date of decree of final decree is very much valid. 

The sale of property within this period is illegal as per law. 

The petitioner in the EP can proceed. 

When the provisions of law is very clear in this regard you don't need any citation to assert your claim. 

However you may look for a suitable citation through internet or contact your advocate. 

Dear 

All questions relating to delivery of possession shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Such questions, therefore, are to be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Section 47 itself has nothing to do with the question of limitation. Article 136 prescribes a period of limitation of 12 years for the execution of a decree from the date on which the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods when default in making any payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place. After a decree is out into execution within the period of limitation under Article 136,

As per his statement of Defendant, the decree, though is in force but as it filed too late for execution, hence has 
no legal force of execution Which comes under Article 134 of the Limitation which presdcribe a period of one 
year limitation period. But this will be taken into consideration if you are opposing the sale only.

As you have filed an execution petition the limitaion period of 12 Years will be considered as per ARTICLE 136. 
and Article 134 will not be considered as per defendant.

1. As per the information mentioned in the present query, makes it clear that the decree having been passed, but not executed due to some reasons which are not for the court to confer if limitation period as law if limitation is still in continuance.
2. There will be no question at all by the court of law as there is not a single judgment by the Apex court or any High Court wherein lower court can put question when the same is within the period of limitation, then no matter if it is even by one day.
3. You will have to file a separate contempt petition for declaring the sale null and void and praying for the punishment for the non compliers apart from the present execution petition.