State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jarnail Singh vs Emerging Valley Private Ltd. on 16 March, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
============
M i s c. Ap p l i ca t i o n N o . I N : M A / 6 4 /2 0 2 3
E x e c u t i o n Ap p l i c a t i o n N o . : E A /4 7 4 / 2 0 1 7
Date of Institution : 02/02/2023
D a t e o f D ec i s i o n : 16/03/2023
Jarnail Singh son of Darshan Singh, Resident of House
No. 143, Bhai Gurditta Nagar, Ghas Mandi, Basti Sheikh,
Jalandhar.
.... Decree Holder
Vs .
M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited, having its
Corporation Office at SCO 46-47, First Floor, Sector 9D,
near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through
its Director/ Managing Director.
...... Judgment Debtor
BEFORE: MRS.PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER PRESENT : Ms. Shalini Attri, Advocate for the Applicants (Sh. Naveen Singla and Mrs. Manisha Singla).
Sh. J.S. Rattu, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor. PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. By means of present order, we shall be disposing off MA/64/2023 (in EA/474/2017 - "Jarnail Singh Vs. M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.") moved on behalf of Sh.Naveen Singla and Mrs.Manisha Singla (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as 'the Applicants') for reviving/restoring MA/298/2020 and for deciding the same on merits, as the said application filed by the -2- Applicants has been mistakenly/illegally dismissed by this Commission.
2. Upon notice, Sh. J.S. Rattu, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Judgment Debtor (M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.) and raised no objection for recalling the order dated 12.04.2022 and for restoring MA/298/2020 on the ground that since the property in question has already been de-attached vide order dated 01.08.2022 passed by this Commission and does not belong to M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case, with their able assistance.
4. Perusal of the order dated 12.04.2022, passed by this Commission, shows that MA/298/2021 (in fact, MA/298/2020), along with various other miscellaneous applications moved by the accused - Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, seeking removal of attachment qua the properties under attachment, stood dismissed by this Commission.
5. The facts leading to the case are, that the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/37/2017 - "Jarnail Singh Vs. M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd." was filed by the complainant on 12.01.2017, which was allowed by this -3- Commission vide order dated 23.05.2017, directing the Judgment Debtor to refund the due amount to the Decree Holder, along with interest, besides compensation and litigation expenses. However, the Judgment Debtor failed to comply with the said order, which resulted into filing of the execution application bearing no. EA/474/2017 on 19.12.2017, which is still pending adjudication. During pendency of the Consumer Complaint, Sale Deed No.722 dated 05.05.2017 was executed between Shaife Kumar, Authorized Signatory for Emerging India Housing Corporation and the Applicants herein (Sh.Naveen Singla and Mrs.Manisha Singla) for the purchase of a piece of land measuring 4 Kanal 15-5/6 Marla, comprising in Khewat/Khatoni No. 57/76, Khasra No. 5//21/2 (5-0), situated in the revenue estate of Village Nougyari, H.B. No. 282, for an amount of ₹36,50,000/- before the Sub Registrar, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) and Mutation No. 233 vide Document No. 2018-19/3/1/439 was also sanctioned in favour of the Applicants on 09.08.2018. The Applicants had moved MA/298/2020 on 11.02.2020 through Sh.Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, stating that the aforesaid land has no link with the present case where the execution proceedings are going on till date and therefore, prayed for dropping the sale proceedings in respect of the land owned by the Applicants since when they purchased -4- the said land there was no charge or lien upon that land and it was not subject matter of any litigation, which application was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 12.04.2022, along with other misc. applications. On identical facts, now, again the Applicants filed in the instant application praying for reviving/restoring MA/298/2020 and for deciding the same on merits, alleging that the said application filed by the Applicants was mistakenly/illegally dismissed by this Commission.
6. Per material available on record, to our mind, the present application (MA/64/2023) does not hold any ground, in view of the fact that the land specified above was sold by the Judgment Debtor to the Applicants during the pendency of CC/37/2017 - "Jarnail Singh Vs. M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.", which was filed on 12.01.2017 and the same was decreed by this Commission on 23.05.2017, but the sale deed was effected on 05.05.2017, which is clearly during the pendency of the consumer Complaint.
7. The Doctrine of Lis Pendens and the principle of the maxim "Ut pendent nihil innovetur" are imbibed under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The section applies to the suits related to title dispute over any immovable property and the section -5- prohibits or restricts any transfer, alienation or disposition of that immovable property in question till the litigation is pending or unless the judgement comes from the court of competent jurisdiction so as to affect the rights of the opponent. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, reads as thus:-
"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.--During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government] of [any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose."
[Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.]"
-6-
A bare perusal of the aforesaid section would clearly demonstrate that a third party purchaser of a property pending litigation, without the permission of the Court cannot have any independent right over and above the right of the seller who happened to be the party to the lis. Further, the Explanation attached to Section 52 ibid makes it clear that lis shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order, and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained.
8. In case if transfer has been made of any immovable property during pendency of suit which will decide the right to title on that immovable property Section 52 does not hold such transfer void, but the transferee of the property will be bound by the decision of the pendente lite. It is based on the principle that the person purchasing an immovable property from the judgment debtor during the pendency of the suit has no independent right to property to resist, obstruct or obje ct execution of a decree. Thus, if the immovable property is being purchased from the decree holder then only the transferee will get the title of the property. -7-
9. In the instant case the sale deed executed relating to the property in dispute does not give any independent right over and above the right of the seller who happened to be the party to the lis. The transferee/Applicants will be bound by the decision of the court and will be considered as the person who stepped into the shoes of the transferor/Judgment Debtor. Needless to mention here that transfer during pendency of complaint does not automatically render such transfer void. The provisions of the Section 52 ibid only render such transfer subservient to the rights of the parties to litigation. The Applicants/transferees, who acquired the immovable property during litigation over it, are bound, by application of the doctrine of lis pendens and by the decree passed in the complaint even though they may not have been impleaded in it.
10. Before parting with the order, we may add here that notwithstanding the no objection raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Judgment Debtor, the prayer of the applicants cannot be acceded to, keeping in view the fact that the purpose of Section 52 is not to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of Court which is dealing with the property to which the claims are put forward.
-8-
11. For the reasons recorded above, the prayer of the applicants for reviving/restoring MA/298/2020 and for deciding the same on merits, being bereft of any substance, does not merit consideration and consequently, the instant misc. application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as well as the Applicants, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
P r on o u n c e d 16th March, 2023 Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) PESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER "Dutt"