Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, RR.97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 – In 1996, respondent no.1-tenant filed a special civil suit no.97/1996/B against MK for dissolution of partnership, recovery of profit and ejectment – No issues relating to ownership of the property which was leased out to respondent no.1 – Appellant herein had purchased the said property not from any party to the said suit, i.e. the plaintiff or defendant, but from owner M/s. R Pvt. Ltd., who was not a party to the proceedings – In the said suit decree was granted in favour of respondent no.1 – Respondent no.1 filed an application for execution of decree – Appellant moved an application u/Or.XXI, Rules 97 and 101 of CPC objecting to execution of decree – Application of respondent no.1 was dismissed by the Executing Court – Aggrieved, decree-holder preferred writ petition – The High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court and it also closed the enquiry – Correctness:
Held: The Executing Court was right in rejecting the application of respondent no.1 – The appellant in the present case does not trace his title from the judgment-debtor, i.e. the MK and therefore, he is not a transferee pendente lite of the judgmentdebtor – The appellant is a bona fide buyer who had bought the suit property from M/s R Pvt. Ltd., vide registered sale deed dated 24.04.2007, who traced their title from the original owner, Mrs. M, vide registered sale deed dated 16.01.1988 – The transferor, M/s R Pvt. Ltd., of the appellant was not a party to the suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 97/1996/B, the decree of which has been put to execution – They were third party, having received the ownership rights from the original owner in 1988 – Thus, even if the appellant did buy the subjectproperty in 2007, during the pendency of the suit between the MK and the present respondents, the bar of Rule 102 of Order XXI does not affect or prohibit the appellant from raising his objections before the Executing Court under Rules 97 and
101 and subsequently receive its adjudication under Rules 98 and 100 – Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Executing Court is directed to proceed with the enquiry – The Executing Court is directed to decide the application u/Or.XXI, Rules 97 and 101 CPC on its own merits. [Paras 14-16] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, R.102 – Scope of – Discussed:
Held: The whole scheme of Rule 102 of Order XXI intends to preserve the idea of achieving finality of the judicial decisions – The provision imbibes the principle of “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e., it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation – In a suit pending between a plaintiff and a defendant as to the right to a particular estate, the decision of the court in that case shall be binding not only on the litigating parties, but also on those who derive title under them by alienations (transfer) made while the suit was pending, whether such alienees, i.e. transferees, had or had not notice of the pending proceedings – Therefore, Rule 102 of Order XXI intends to protect the interests of the decree-holder against the attempts of unscrupulous judgment-debtors and their subsequent transferees who indulge in activities and leave no stone unturned to deprive the decree-holders from reaping the benefits of the decree granted in their favour – The Rule being equitable in nature, therefore, estops further creation of rights as it explicitly states that nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to the resistance or obstruction being made by the transferee pendente lite of judgment-debtor. [Para 9]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, R.102 – Ingredients of – Discussed:
Held: Rule 102 of Order XXI expressly lays down the ingredients as to when it can be applied – For a case to fall under Rule 102, it is a condition precedent that there exists a decree for the possession of immovable property – Secondly, there must be a resistance or an obstruction in the execution of the said decree – Thirdly, such obstruction or resistance must be made by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property – Fourthly, such transfer must have occurred after the institution of the original suit, i.e. the one in which the decree was passed – If the aforesaid ingredients are made out, Rule 102 prohibits the protection of Rules 98 and 101 to such errant transferee of judgment-debtor – The transferee of a judgment-debtor who traces his title to the immovable property, that is the subject matter of a pending suit, is not entitled to seek the remedy available under Rules 97 to 102 of Order XXI – However, Rule 102 of Order XXI applies only to a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the immovable property which was subject matter of that suit pendente lite – If the person who is resisting or obstructing the execution of the decree for possession of such property, is not the transferee of judgment debtor, i.e. he does not trace his title from judgment-debtor, bar of Rule 102 does not apply to him. [Paras 11, 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.