Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
J. Dinakaran – Appellant
Versus
P.Gowri Ammal – Respondent
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 th
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.
A person claiming independent right, title or interest in the property can resist delivery of possession even by filing an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the executing court itself and if th....
A party dispossessed after contesting execution cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 if they retained an opportunity to object under Rule 97, marking them effectively as a judgment debtor.
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
Third parties can file applications under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to assert their rights before dispossession, ensuring procedural fairness in execution proceedings.
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
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
