Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by M/s. Prembrothers Infrastructure LLP and M/s. DJ Sons Hospitality (the petitioners) challenging the execution proceedings in Regular Darkhast No.71/2014 and orders dated 18/07/2020, 17/12/2022, 13/09/2023, and 20/09/2023 passed by the Executing Court. The suit property is a piece of land admeasuring 2.33 acres being part of Survey No.67 at village Mohgaon, Nagpur. The respondents No.1 to 3 (original plaintiffs) had obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of the suit property against the original defendants (respondents No.4 to 7). During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners purchased the suit property from the original defendants. After the decree was passed, the decree holders filed execution proceedings seeking possession. The petitioners filed an application for intervention under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) claiming to be in possession and entitled to resist execution. The Executing Court rejected the intervention application vide order dated 13/09/2023 and subsequently disposed of the execution petition on 20/09/2023. The petitioners challenged these orders. The High Court held that the petitioners, being purchasers pendente lite, are bound by the decree under the principle of lis pendens as enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court observed that the remedy under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is available only to persons who are not bound by the decree and who are in possession. Since the petitioners purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, they are bound by the decree and cannot resist execution. The court further held that the Executing Court was justified in rejecting the intervention application and disposing of the execution petition. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Execution Proceedings - Order XXI Rule 97 - Third Party Obstruction - The petitioners, who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit, sought to intervene in execution proceedings. The Executing Court rejected their application. The High Court held that the petitioners, being purchasers pendente lite, are bound by the decree and cannot resist execution without obtaining leave of the court. The court observed that the remedy under Order XXI Rule 97 is available only to persons in possession who are not bound by the decree. (Paras 10-15) B) Transfer of Property Act - Lis Pendens - Section 52 - The petitioners purchased the property during the pendency of the suit for specific performance. The High Court held that such purchase is subject to the result of the suit, and the petitioners cannot claim any right independent of the decree. The principle of lis pendens applies, and the petitioners are bound by the decree. (Paras 12-14) C) Civil Procedure Code - Execution Proceedings - Order XXI Rule 101 - Determination of Questions - The High Court held that the Executing Court is competent to decide all questions relating to the rights of third parties in execution proceedings. However, the petitioners' application was rightly rejected as they failed to establish any independent right or title. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit, can resist the execution of the decree for specific performance by filing an application for intervention under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Executing Court. The court held that the petitioners, being purchasers during the pendency of the suit, are bound by the decree and cannot resist execution. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order XXI Rule 97 CPC
- Order XXI Rule 101 CPC
- Section 52 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- lis pendens
- third party rights in execution
- obstruction to possession
- intervention in execution proceedings
