A transferee pendente lite cannot resist the execution of a decree, and objections raised by judgment debtors are not maintainable under the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1.The present case places this Court in a position similar to the one in which the Privy Council found itself in The General Manager of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh , [ 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16 ], decided in 1872, and, more recently, the Supreme Court found itself in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew & Anr., [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 643 ] The common thread underlying both decisions is a prophetic observation that the real difficulties of the litigants begin once they have obtained a decree. These appeals have arisen out of a common impugned order dated 07.03.2019, passed by Additional District Judge-03, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in Execution No.77/2017, rejecting the objections submitted by the appellants/judgment debtors. The objections were filed under the purported ambit of Order XXI Rule 97 and Rules 103 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ((hereinafter referred to as CPC)

DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES

2. The appellants/objectors were Mr. Vineet Tiwari, Judgment Debtor No.1 (hereinafter referred to as JD-1), and Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Judgment Debtor No.3 (hereinafter referred to as JD-3), respectively. Notably, the appellant/JD-3, Mr. Aakarsh Srivatava, in EX.F.A. 9/2019 is the subsequent transferee/assignee of JD-1. The objections were filed against the execution of the decree in judgment dated 26.04.2012, passed by this Court in CRP No. 65/2007. The legal battle concerns a part of the ground floor portion of H. No. N-258, Greater Kailash-I, described as a ‘two-room garage block with front and rear lawns’ (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Rao, appearing on behalf of the respondent/Decree Holder (hereinafter referred to as DH) urges the Court to first rule on his objection to the maintainability of these first appeals. Hence, the parties have extensively argued on the said issue.

4. The learned counsel, draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 21.10.2021, and submits the objection of maintainability of these appeals was raised at the earliest available opportunity.

5. According to him, the appellant/JD-3, Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, is a transferee pendente lite, and appellant/JD-1 Mr. Vineet Tiwari, is a JD. Therefore, they both stand obligated by the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012. He further submits that an order passed under Section 47 read with Rule 35 of Order XXI of the CPC cannot be construed to be a decree.

6. Learned counsel submits that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as TPA) mandates that during the pendency of a suit, till the complete satisfaction or discharge of the final decree, 'the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court'. He submits that under no circumstances, the transferee pendente lite