Seeking legal opinions: applicability of lis pendens (sec. 52 tpa) when a property claim suit culmin

I am seeking views and insights from senior advocates and legal practitioners on a complex execution matter currently underway before a Civil / Family Court in Punjab. Brief Chronology & Facts: Initial Suit / Plaint (01.12.2022): The plaintiff instituted an original petition claiming ownership, proprietary rights, and a direct financial/monetary interest over a specific commercial property ('D' schedule land and building), pleading that the property was purchased and constructed using the plaintiff's funds. Interim Injunction & Subsequent Mortgage: An interim injunction was issued restraining the respondent/judgment debtor from alienating or encumbering the property. However, pendente lite (a couple of months after the suit filing and injunction order), the respondent created a mortgage (gehan) over the property in favor of a Cooperative Bank for ₹93 lakhs. (Note: Registry intimation to the Sub-Registrar/Village Office was omitted due to an administrative oversight by the court office, but the opposite party's counsel was present and acknowledged the injunction in court). Final Disposal via Compromise Decree: Instead of a contested judgment on ownership, the litigation concluded through a court-sanctioned compromise decree. Under the decree, the judgment debtor agreed to pay ₹1.75 crores to the plaintiff within a stipulated timeline, with a specific default clause stipulating that if the judgment debtor fails to make the payment, the suit property shall be brought to sale/auction to realize the full decree amount. The Core Legal Dilemma & Conflicting Views: The Skeptical View: A strict reading of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act suggests that lis pendens applies when a suit directly involves a contested title or right to immovable property. A view is being expressed that because the suit ultimately ended in a compromise decree for payment of money (₹1.75 crores) rather than a formal, contested judicial declaration of ownership/title, the doctrine of lis pendens loses its teeth, thereby potentially leaving the pendente lite mortgage intact and ahead of the decree holder's recovery. The Counter-Argument (Proponent View): The counter-view is that the nature of the suit must be judged by the reliefs claimed in the initial plaint (which staked a direct claim over the property itself). Furthermore, because the compromise decree explicitly ties the ₹1.75 crore payment obligation to the property as a court-ordered charge/default auction mechanism, it carries the full force of a judicial charge and prior equitable lien, rendering any pendente lite encumbrance subordinate. Additionally, there is an active violation of an interim injunction (known personally to the opposite party's counsel) and alleged collusion/padding of loan accounts to defeat execution. Specific Questions for the Forum: In Indian civil jurisprudence, does a compromise decree containing a default charge/auction clause over the suit property preserve the protection of lis pendens or create a judicial charge that supersedes a pendente lite mortgage created during the suit? How do courts in Punjab typically treat post-injunction encumbrances created when registry intimation was missed by the court office, but the opposite party had actual knowledge/presence in court? What are the best practices or specific precedents to cite in an execution petition to ensure a pendente lite bank mortgage is pushed behind a compromise decree charge? Constructive legal opinions, case law references, and strategic insights from fellow professionals would be highly appreciated.