Back
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, M.VENKATA RAMANA
Kurra Murali Krishna Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Rama Cooperative Building Society Limited – Respondent
ORDER
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.—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
There is no provision in Civil Procedure Code, governing procedure for impleading subsequent purchasers at the stage of execution proceedings – In such an event, inherent powers of court under Sectio....
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.
A pendente lite purchaser can be added as a party to ongoing litigation to protect substantial interests, and such applications should typically be granted without prejudice.
Point of Law : Presence of the transferee pendent lite is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit and issues involved therein and the court below has exercised its discretion in....
The court affirmed that a purchaser pendente lite is a necessary party in ongoing litigation to ensure all parties with legitimate interests are heard.
Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of CPC must not issue notice on application of a third party claiming right in a mechanical manner.
Lis pendens purchasers are not necessary or proper parties in a specific performance suit, as their absence does not impede the passing of an effective decree.
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
