Citing constraints on supervisory jurisdiction and the doctrine of lis pendens, the court dismissed the revision petition filed by a property purchaser during litigation, holding that he had no right to obstruct decree execution.
Revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit; petitioner has no right to obstruct execution of decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.2602 of 2011(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.2602 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2011
Ram Kishan
.....Petitioner
v.
Punjab Wakf Board and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 7.10.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide which appeal filed against order dated 31.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat, rejecting objection petition filed by petitioner in execution proceedings was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned both the Courts below.
Admitted facts are that petitioner has purchased the property in dispute during pendency of present litigation. Hence, it has been rightly held by learned Courts below that sale is hit by doctrine of lis pendence and he is having no right to obstruct the execution of decree passed in favour of respondent-decree-holder and that he has no right to obstruct the process of possession, which is sought to be taken by decree-holder pursuant to the
Civil Revision No.2602 of 2011(O&M) -2-
decree passed in its favour. Learned Courts below have rightly placed reliance upon Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram and others , 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 145: 2009(4) SCC 774: 2008 AIR (SC) 1997. Relevant paragraphs of the same read as under:-
-3-
Civil Revision No.2602 of 2011(O&M)
"It is true that Rule 99 of Order 21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder. Rule 101 stipulates that all questions "arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99" shall be determined by the executing court, if such questions are "relevant to the adjudication of the application". A third party to the decree who offers resistance would thus fall within the ambit of Rule 101 if an adjudication is warranted as a consequence of the resistance or obstruction made by him to the execution of the decree. No doubt if the resistance was made by a transferee pendente lite of the judgment debtor, the scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question whether he is such transferee and on a finding in the affirmative regarding that point the execution court has to hold that he has no right to resist in view of the clear language contained in Rule 102. Exclusion of such a transferee from raising further contentions is based on the salutary principle adumbrated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act." (emphasis supplied) [See also Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh, (1996) 5 SCC 539]
-4-
Civil Revision No.2602 of 2011(O&M)
resist, obstruct or object execution of a decree. Resistance at the instance of transferee of a judgment debtor during the pendency of the proceedings cannot be said to be resistance or obstruction by a person in his own right and, therefore, is not entitled to get his claim adjudicated.
In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.
Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:-
“Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or
Civil Revision No.2602 of 2011(O&M)
-5-
of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.”
Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
11.7.2011 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the courts below, which rejected the petitioner's objection to execution proceedings based on lis pendens, was passed with any illegality or material irregularity warrant
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to correct errors of fact or law made by the lower courts in a non-cognizable matter.
Whether a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of litigation has any right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree passed in favour of the respondent-decree-holder.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kishan
Punjab Wakf Board
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
