Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and after filing the suit, respondent No.1 had also got issued a notice in the newspaper "Samar Ghosh" qua pendency of the suit regarding the suit land on 7.6.2000, which is prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the appellant. The Executing Court held that this case is covered by the Principle of 'lispendens' and the appellant has no right to stall Execution of the decree. It was also held that framing of issue and leading evidence is not necessary to determine the objections filed by the appellant due to lispendens.

Aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court dated 14.8.2003, the appellant filed first appeal before the learned Addl.District Judge, Sirsa, which too was dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2004 almost on the same analogy of lispendens.

Mr.L.N.Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that principle of lispendens shall not apply in this case as agreement of the appellant is prior in time. The execution proceedings were alleged to be nullity against the appellant because she was not made a party in the suit. It is further contended that she cannot be impleaded as a party for the first time in the execution proceedings and the objections could not have been disposed off by the Courts below without framing issues. Mr.Verma has also argued that the appellant has a statutory right in view of provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act being in possession of the land in dispute in part performance. It is further urged that the appellant has taken a categorical plea in the objection petition that the suit is collusive between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. and this question of fact should have been decided by the Courts below after framing issues and affording opportunity of leading evidence to the appellant. Thus, it is submitted by Mr.Verma, that the orders of the Courts below should be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Executing Court to decide afresh after framing issues and allowing the parties to lead their respective evidence in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 47 of Civil Procedure Code (for short,' 'CPC').

As against this, Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that it is the admitted case on record that the appellant was not a party to the suit because agreement to sell does not confer any title on her . Moreover, principle of lispendens shall apply to this case in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. which provides that lispendens would start from the date of the presentation of the plaint which was presented on 1.5.2002 and the sale deed has been executed thereafter. Therefore, any transanction which has been made by respondent No.1. In favour of the appellant is hit by the principle of lispendens. Regarding the prayer of Mr.Verma that the execution application should be treated as a suit in view of Rule 97 and 101 of C.P.C., Mr.Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. has argued that Order 21 Rule 102 of C.P.C. categorically provide that Rules 98 and 100 and Order 21 shall not apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which decree was passed. Mr.Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has heavily relied upon the fact that since the property in dispute has been transferred to the appellant during the pendency of the suit, therefore, it is hit by the principle of lispendens. He has cited Sanjay Vema Vs. Manik Roy & Ors 2007 (1) Civil Court Cases 401 and Jaswant Singh Vs. Ralla Singh & Ors 2005 (3) Civil Court Cases 262 (P&H) to contend that transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree as if he was a party to the suit. Objections of subsequent purchaser during pendency of suit are not to be adjudicated upon like a civil suit but have to be summarily disposed of. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Hassanpur Vs. Jagdish Chand and others 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Civil ) 636 to contend that third party objections are like a suit which is to be tried and adjudicated like an independent suit. Charanjit Singh and anr. of Chandigarh Vs. Manmohan Singh & others 1989 H.R.R. 108 to contend that the Executing Court cannot dismiss the objections without framing the issues and without allowing the parties to lead evidence. Learned counsel has also cited an Order passed in Civil Revision No. 690 of 2004 M/S Inderjeet and Company v. Satish etc. in this regard. He also cited a decision of Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Pulavarthi Ammanna and others vs. Bommireddipalli Ramakrishna Rao and others A.I.R.1949 Madras 886 to the effect that a person who ought to have been joined as a party to a suit but had not been joined before the decree cannot, after the decree, be impleaded in the course of execution procedings so as to make him bound by the decree to which admittedly he was not a party . The learned counsel also cited Prasantha Banerji Vs. Pushpa Ashoke Chandani and others 2001 (2) P.L.J 136 to show that after initiation of execution proceedings in respect of property ,suit regarding same property by a person not being party to the decree is not maintainable in view of objections in execution proceedings.

Now the question in the present appeal is as to whether the Courts below have rightly dismissed the objections without framing issues or should have allowed the objection petition to be treated as a suit in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 of the C.P.C. No doubt, Order 21 Rule 102 of the Code specifically provide that Rules 98 and 100 of the Code shall not apply to the resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit on the ground of lispendens but there is an exception in Section 52 of The Transfer of Property Act 1882, which is reproduced below:-