Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004
13. Exactly, that is the reason why the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal and others reported in 2004
(1) CTC 549 held that the pendente lite purchaser is entitled to maintain an
application to set aside the exparte decree passed in a suit for specific
11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3254 of 2022
performance. It would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision which reads as follows:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Balvant N. Viswamitra And Ors vs Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) Through Lrs. And ... on 13 August, 2004
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and
2 that the petitioner having acquired knowledge about the pending litigation
in the year 2008, as exhibited by Exs.R2 and R3, suppressed the same in the
present application for impleading. The learned counsel also relied on the
judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balvanth N.Viswamitra vs. Yadav
Sadashiv Mule reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706 for the proposition that only a
void decree can be challenged even at the time of execution, but however any
other decree which is not void, even if erroneous or illegal cannot be objected
to in execution or collateral proceedings.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 47 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
N.Rajaram vs R.Murali on 3 July, 2019
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
a bona fide purchaser, who purchased the suit property without notice of the
pending litigation. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is
the present owner of the property and he is aggrieved by the execution of the
decree and consequently, he has got locus standi to file a petition to set aside
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3254 of 2022
the exparte decree and to implead himself as party in the suit. It was further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a purchaser pendente
lite is a person bound by the decree passed in the pending litigation and
hence, he is entitled to get himself impleaded and also to get the exparte
decree set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contention that the pendente lite purchaser is entitled to maintain a petition to
set aside the exparte decree and to get himself impleaded as a party relied on
the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Sardari
Lal and others reported in 2004 (1) CTC 549, which has been followed by
this Court in N.Rajaram vs. R.Murali and others reported in
MANU/TN/5112/2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner acquired knowledge about the litigation and the execution
proceedings only when he received a letter dated 26.12.2019 from original
defendant in the suit informing him about the exparte decree. It was his
contention that the petitioner has acquired knowledge about the pending
litigation and execution proceedings only during December-2019.
4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Oswal Fats And Oils Ltd vs Addl.Commnr.,Bareilly Division & Ors on 1 April, 2010
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner acquired knowledge about the pending
litigation only during December-2019, after receipt of letter from 3rd
respondent cannot be accepted in the light of Exs.R2 and R3 viz., letter sent
by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner
and his vendors wherein the pending litigations and the exparte decree passed
against the defendants therein viz., vendors of the present petitioner's vendor
were clearly mentioned. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel
for the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner acquired knowledge about the
pending litigation even in the year 2008 and kept quiet for nearly 13 years
and thereafter, filed the present petition to implead himself as a party in the
suit along with the petition to set aside the exparte decree in the year 2021.
Therefore, in the light of Exs.R2 and R3, the present petition for impleading
filed by the revision petitioner is only an attempt to drag on the proceedings
with mala fide intention. The learned counsel further submitted that the
defence of bona fide purchaser is not available to a person, who purchased
the property pending litigation and consequently, any decree passed against
5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3254 of 2022
him is binding on him under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs
made bonafide attempts to implead the subsequent purchasers viz., the
vendors of the petitioner by filing an application in A.No.141 of 2007 in
C.S.No.845 of 2006 and the said application was dismissed by this Court on
the ground that in a suit for specific performance, the subsequent purchasers
were not necessary parties as any transaction pending suit would be hit by
doctrine of lis pendens. When the application to implead the vendors of the
petitioner was already dismissed, the present petitioner who claims right
under him is not entitled to maintain another application for impleading
himself. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs.
Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and
others reported in 2010 (2) SCC 726 for the proposition that a person who
approaches the Court for grant of relief is under a solemn obligation to
candidly disclose all the material facts concerning the issues raised in the
case.
1