Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. GROVER AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Iqbal Singh, Appellant
Versus
G. S. Badal and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1150/1971, D/- 12-4-1972. 582
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 133(3) - Limitation Act – Section 7(c),14 and article 117 - Madras Revenue Recovery Act – Section 42 - Transfer of Property Act – Section 52 – Property – Partition - Plaintiff filed a pauper petition - In plaint he claimed a partition of Schedule properties which, according to him belonged to Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself and the defendants - While this suit was pending, defendant and four of his sons executed a sale deed (Ex. B-7) in respect of some lands village in favour of one - These properties comprised items of Schedule B - Certificate of sale was issued stating that said one had purchased at public auction immoveable property - Property is stated to have been sold for "pump set arrears under Hire-Purchase System due - Whether Judge will have right to condone a breach of Rule because no application seems to have been made to condone breach of Rule – Held, , it could be urged that where it is not a party to litigation but an outside agency, such as tax collecting authorities of Government, which proceeds against subject matter of litigation, without anything done by a litigating party, resulting transaction will not be hit by Section 52 - Again, where all the parties which could be affected by a pending litigation are themselves parties to a transfer or dealings with property in such a way that they cannot resale from or disown the transaction impugned before Court dealing with litigation, the Court may bind them to their own acts - In the case before court, Courts had given directions to safeguard such just and equitable claims as purchaser appellant may have obtained without trespassing on the rights of plaintiff-respondent in joint property involved in partition suit before Court - Hence, doctrine of list pendency was correctly applied - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
GROVER, J. :- This appeal from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is directed against an order of the Chief Election Commissioner allowing inspection in terms of Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, shall stand disposed of in the following manner :-
Counsel for the appellant and the contesting respondent who is the returned candidate agree that the order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 15th March, 1971 would be set aside on the ground that no reasons have been recorded in that order as required by Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The formal order of 16th March, 1971, shall also set aside as not being the order of the Chief Election Commissioner. This will, however, be without prejudice to the right of the appellant to seek an order of inspection of the ballot papers and the electoral rolls used for the Lok Sabha Parliamentary Election of the Fazilka constituency held in March, 1971 and/or recount in the election petition filed by the appellant challenging the said election and now pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in accordance with the law laid down by this Court, in particular, the decision reported in Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari, 1970 (1) SCR 852 as also any changes in the provisions of the Representation of the People Act or the Conduct of Election Rules and any directions legally issued by the Chief Election Commissioner, either under the aforesaid Act or the Rules. An appropriate issue with regard to inspection etc. has already been framed by the High Court in the election petition. Let the costs be costs in the election petition.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1973 SC 581
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
