Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The matter can be examined from another angle also. Whether the plaintiffs had any notice of the pendency of the petition before the Collector? Sale deed dated 2.2.1978 does not make mention of this and in the absence of notice any such decision against a party (who had not even been impleaded) will not bind him. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the counsel for the respondents upon the doctrine of lis pendence. According to the counsel, since the plaintiffs acquired right during the pendency of the proceedings before the Collector, they would be bound by any such decision unless challenged within the stipulated period. According to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, a suit or proceeding is deemed to commence from the presentation of the plaint or institution of the proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction and since the decision by the Collector is that of a Court, the principles enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act apply to the facts of the present case thus debarring the plaintiffs from reagitating the matter in view of the pendency of the earlier decision between the defendant respondents and Nand Singh. Before applying the principles of lis pendence, it is to be determined whether the petition before the Collector can be termed to be in the nature of the suit and that the Collector acts like a Court. The term 'Court' has not been defined in the Code. All the same, normally it is applied to the civil proceedings envisaging filing of plaint, written statement, framing of issue and adjudication of the same culminating in passing of judgment and drawing of a decree. The proceedings before a Collector under the Redemption of Mortgagees Act are in the nature of summary proceedings. The Act does not envisage drawing of a petition strictly in the form of plaint, filing of written statement and framing of issues etc. The purpose of the Act appears to be to decide the matter in a summary manner i.e. without going into the elaborate procedure of a civil suit. The Collector under the Redemption of Mortgagees Act exercises the power of a revenue officer. Under the Punjab Tenancy Act, the revenue officers have dual functions i.e. they exercise the powers of revenue officers as well as powers of revenue court. When these revenue officers act as revenue Courts, they follow the procedure prescribed under the Code i.e. filing of plaint, written statement, framing of issues, passing of judgment and drawing of a decree whereas while acting as a Revenue Officer they do not follow the stringent provisions of the civil Court and only follow some of the provisions of the civil Court such as a brief statement and pleadings made by or on behalf of the parties whether oral or written is to be as brief as it can be and not to be argumentative, verification of the application, appointment of Commission, apportionment and recovery of costs, execution of ejectment order etc. Since the Collector exercised his powers as a revenue officer, any such decision cannot be termed to be that of a Court. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act refers to pendency of a suit or proceedings. Proceedings in this context would mean any such proceedings before a Court of competent jurisdiction which has trapping of a civil Court. So strictly speaking, the doctrine of lis pendence will not be strictly applicable. Otherwise too, on the basis of general principles as well and especially in the facts of the present case, the same cannot be construed in a manner depriving a person of his legitimate claim to redeem independently of an earlier decision against the vendor.