The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule-102 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in the context of a pendente lite purchase and the ability of the purchaser to dispute the title to the property.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner herein is said to have purchased the petition schedule property from the 5th respondent under a registered deed of sale dated 04.08.2021 registered as a document No.2402 of 2021 and had been in possession of the said property since then.

2. The petitioner had subsequently come to know that the suit schedule property was the subject matter of a deed of sale dated 23.02.2015, in E.P.No.51 of 2012 in O.S.No.24 of 2001 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The petitioner upon coming to know of the said sale, when he was sought to be dispossessed from the said property, had approached the executing Court by way of E.A.No.44 of 2015 under Order 21 Rules 97, 98 & 101 Read with 47 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside the deed of sale dated 23.02.2015 which had earlier been executed in favour of the respondents.

3. This petition of the petitioner, was rejected, at the threshold, by the executing Court, by a docket order dated 09.10.2023. The executing Court held that it would not have any jurisdiction to set aside the deed of sale executed on 23.02.2015 and the same had been executed in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S.No.24 of 2001 and in the proceedings initiated in E.P.No.51 of 2012 as well as the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1489 of 2023.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said application could not have been rejected, at the threshold, as there were various disputed questions of fact which should have been determined before any conclusion was drawn by the executing Court. He further submits that the provisions of Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Rules 97, 98 & 101 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 makes it clear that all questions which are required to be ascertained in an execution petition would have to be determined in accordance with these provisions and should not be treated merely as provisions authorizing filing of an application but should be treated as provisions which provided for a suit to be filed and any application filed under these provisions should be treated as a suit.

6. This Court, in course of the hearing, had raised a question as to whether Rule-102 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 precludes the petitioner to move such applications as Rule-102 prohibits such applications being filed by a pendente lite purchaser.

7. Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr Vs. Shibu Mathew & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos.3758 -3796 of 2023. He would further submit that in the said case, the respondents herein had raised the question of bar under Rule 102 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the same was negatived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which held that in such circumstances the said bar would not operate as various questions of fact need to be gone into. He would submit that this Judgment would apply to the present facts of the case and that the said bar would not operate in the present case.

8. Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the said Judgment can be distinguished on facts and in any event the petitioner has only sought a direction to the executing Court to set aside the deeds of sale executed by the Trial Court without seeking any relief against the Judgment/Decree on the basis of which the deed of sale had been executed.

9. Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the suit, on the basis of which the earlier deed of sale had been executed in the year 2015, was filed against the respondents 2 to 5 herein while the respondents 2 to 4 did not have any title to the property and as such, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person who is a pendente li