Point of Law: Applications under Order I, Rule 10, are not maintainable in execution proceedings as the language of this provision restricts the application of this provision to live suits and pending matters. To put it in another way, the ratio is that the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 are not applicable to implead petitions in Execution Petitions.

ORDER :

Since all these civil revision petitions are essentially arising between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Sri Lakshmi Rama Cooperative Building Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “decree holder”) had filed O.S.No.66 of 1984 and O.S.No.132 of 1984 against Sri Shaik Ismail (deceased) and his son Sri Abdul Mazid, (hereinafter referred to as “Judgment Debtors 1 and 2) for specific performance of agreements of sale. Both these suits were disposed of on 19.08.1995, with certain directions, essentially decreeing the suit for specific performance.

3. The Judgment Debtors 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.2043 of 1995 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.132 of 1984 and A.S.No.478 of 1996 against the judgment in O.S.No.66 of 1984. Both these appeals, filed before the erstwhile High Court of A.P., were dismissed on 03.06.2013. Appeals to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against these orders have also been dismissed.

4. As one of the directions given by the trial Court was for obtaining necessary permissions from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities for completion of the sale proceedings of the suit schedule properties, the decree holder had filed E.P.No.21 of 2002 in O.S.No.132 of 1984 and E.P.No.22 of 2002 in O.S.No.66 of 1984 for appointment of a receiver to obtain necessary permissions for sale of the property. The receiver gave a report on 06.06.2013 stating that the judgment debtors had been declared as non-surplus holders under the Urban land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.78 of 2013 in O.S.No.66 of 1984 and E.P.No.77 of 2013 in O.S.No.132 of 1984 for execution of the said decrees.

5. The decree holder filed E.A.No.208 of 2017 in E.P.No.78 of 2013 and E.A.No.209 of 2017 in E.P.No.77 of 2013 to implead 25 persons in E.A.No.208 of 2017 and 21 persons in E.A.No.209 of 2017 as parties in the execution proceedings.

6. The case of the decree holder in both these applications was that during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon’ble High Court, the judgment debtor 1 had already been declared as non-surplus holder and suppressing that fact, the judgment debtors had plotted the lands involved in both the suits and appeals and sold it to various persons. The decree holder contended that all the sales executed by the judgment debtors were subject to the principle of lis pendens, contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that, the persons sought to be impleaded in both the execution petitions, were the persons who were presently holding title to the land by virtue of the sales effected by the judgment debtors and in some cases, persons who had purchased lands from the judgment debtors (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “purchasers”).

7. These applications were contested by the purchasers, on various grounds including the question of whether the decree holder could implead these purchasers, when the decree holder had kept quiet while the land was being sold and the purchasers had constructed houses and were residing in the land. The purchasers contend that they are bona fide purchasers without notice of the litigation and as such the principles of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply. However, the Executing Court after considering the arguments of both sides allowed the applications impleading the purchasers as parties to the execution petitions.

8. Aggrieved by the said orders, the purchasers have filed the following civil revision petitions.