2019 Supreme(SC) 2186
UDAY UMESH LALIT
Menka Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Umashree Devi – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Joseph Aristotle, Advocate, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, for the Respondent
Judgement Key Points
- The appellant filed Title Suit No. 137/2007 seeking specific performance of an oral agreement dated 10.10.2006 for sale of property, alleging part payment and partial possession, with balance paid on 20.02.2007 but execution avoided by vendor. [1000662860001]
- Summons in the suit were refused by the defendant-vendor, leading to an ex parte decree on 31.03.2008. [1000662860001] (!)
- Execution proceedings initiated by decree-holder (appellant), prompting vendor's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 11.07.2008 to set aside ex parte decree. (!)
- Vendor executed sale deed in favor of respondent (transferee pendente lite) on 06.11.2009 during pendency of O.IX R.13 application. [1000662860002]
- Respondent obstructed execution, leading to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC initiated on 22.12.2009; respondent impleaded on 12.01.2010. [1000662860002]
- Vendor died on 22.01.2010; respondent sought substitution under Order I Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10, and Section 141 CPC in place of vendor. (!) (!)
- Trial court (Sub-Judge, Siwan) dismissed O.IX R.13 application as abated and rejected stay of execution on 16.06.2010. (!)
- Respondent filed writ petitions (CWJC No.11170/2010 and 14075/2010) challenging trial court orders; High Court allowed substitution, finding respondent necessary party as vendor's heirs had no interest post-transfer. (!) (!) (!)
- Scope under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC for obstructionist limited to validity of obstruction; distinct from Order IX Rule 13 CPC, where challenge covers sufficient cause for non-appearance or summons defects. (!)
- Transferee pendente lite lacks right to resist/obstruct decree execution under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, which excludes application of Rules 98/100 to such transferees, embodying lis pendens doctrine. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- However, transferee pendente lite has locus standi to pursue Order IX Rule 13 application to set aside ex parte decree, as scope differs from execution obstruction proceedings. (!) (!)
- Supreme Court affirmed High Court's substitution order, consistent with law on locus in O.IX R.13 context; directed expeditious disposal of Misc. Case No.43/2008 within one month and status quo on property. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Leave granted. These appeals challenges the correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 passed by High Court of judicature at Patna in CWJC No.11170 of 2010 and CWJC No.14075 of 2010.
2. Title Suit No.137/2007 was filed by the appellant in the Court of 1st Sub-Judge, District Siwan, seeking specific performance in respect of an oral agreement dated 10.10.2006. It was submitted that in pursuance of the agreement, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was made over to the original vendor Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and the plaintiff was put in partial possession of the suit property was further submitted that on 20.02.2007 the plaintiff had paid the balance sum of Rs.36,000/- in the Registrars Office and all the formalities were completed but at the stage of signing the documents, the vendor pleaded some physical discomfort and as such, the document could not be executed and that thereafter the vendor avoided execution of the documents.3. The summons issued by the Trial Court on 17.06.2007 in said Title Suit No.137/2007 were said to have been refused to be accepted by the defendant-original vendor. Subsequently, an ex parte decree was passed b
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
