A pendente lite purchaser lacks standing to obstruct execution under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, as their claims do not establish independent rights against a decree.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C, even at the stage of maintainability, has come forward with the present revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.K.S.Arivazhagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram would firstly contend that the Executing Court has fell in error in going into the merits of the application and rejecting the contentions of the petitioner without even numbering the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in Selvaraj v. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited is cited as (2021) 4 CTC 539 . The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the suit for specific performance was filed before this Court in C.S.No.845 of 2006 in respect of an agreement of sale dated 21.12.2005 in favour of the respondent herein. The said suit was subsequently transferred to City Civil Court on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction and numbered as O.S. No.12610 of 2010. Pending the suit, the revision petitioner claimed to have purchased the property on 17.10.2008 and sought to implead himself and also to set aside the decree passed in the suit for specific performance on 21.02.2011. The application for impleading the revision petitioner was dismissed in I.A.No. 1 of 2021. However, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior counsel, fairly conceded that the challenge to the same not only before this Court but also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was unsuccessful.

4. As regards the dismissal of the setting aside application, it is contended by Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel that a C.M.A is filed and the same is pending. The learned Senior Counsel would also state that sale deed has been executed in favor of the respondent in E.P.No. 3081 of 2011 and thereafter, the respondents has filed E.P. 954 of 2025 for recovery of possession. It is therefore the contention of learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram, that mere fact that an Application for impleadment of the revision petitioner has been dismissed, it will not take away his legitimate right to obstruct the decree passed in the Execution Proceedings, invoking Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C.

5. Inviting my attention to the scope of enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned counsel states that the Executing Court ought not to have dismissed the application as not maintainable, especially after going into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and instead ought to have numbered the application and decided the same in accordance with the provisions of the Court, after giving an opportunity to the respondents/decree holders as well.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir V. Isani vs Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) now through his LRs and others, reported in 2025 INSC 1044. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the scope of enquiry under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C for impleading a proper and necessary party is different from what is contemplated under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the dismissal of the impleading application and the same having become final up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot come in the way of the revision petitioner to obstruct the Execution Proceedings. The learned Senior Couns