A purchaser pendente lite cannot object to attachment if they agreed to fulfill a decree obligation.

ORDER

The petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite, who challenges an order of the executing Court, dismissing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC.

2.I have heard Mr.R.Manickavel, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Munusamy, learned counsel for the contesting 1^st respondent/decree holder.

3.Mr.R.Manickavel, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would state that the petitioner had purchased the property, after an order of attachment came to be passed in the execution proceedings and knowing the implications of such purchase, the petitioner had bonafide agreed to settle the decree amount. In fact, Mr.R.Manickavel, learned counsel would also state that there was an earlier application filed by the petitioner to implead herself as one of the parties in the execution petition, besides also seeking permission to settle the decree amount.

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1^st respondent is not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum throughout. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a calculation memo, wherein he has arrived as the amount due to be only Rs.4,97,504/-. He would further state that in order to purchase peace, the petitioner is willing to pay, over and above, the actual amount due, by making one time settlement of Rs.7.5 lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that the petitioner was entitled to raise his objections to the attachment, by invoking Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC and the Court below erroneously rejected the application by order dated 16.09.2025.

5.Per contra, Mr.R.Munusamy, learned counsel appearing for the contesting 1^st respondent would state that unilaterally claiming that the petitioner was due and payable only Rs.4,89,355/-, he had challenged the dismissal of her applications to implead herself in the EP and for permission to deposit the decree debt and this Court, by order dated 24.01.2025, even at the stage of admission, before ordering notice to the 1^st respondent, had allowed the CRPs and permitted the petitioner to deposit the entire amount to the credit of the EP, within a period of four weeks. Consequent to which, the EP was directed to be terminated and the order of attachment was also directed to be raised.

6.However, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would contend that review applications were filed in Rev.Appl.Nos.124 and 125 of 2025 and by order dated 01.07.2025, this Court reviewed the earlier order dated 24.01.2025 and directed the auction purchaser to deposit the entire amount, including interest, as on the date of deposit, finding that the amount claimed to be the amount payable by the petitioner was not the exact amount claimed in the EP. Thereafter, the executing Court, finding that the petitioner has not complied with the directions in the review applications, by order dated 16.09.2025, which is impugned in the present revision petition, held that the application under XXI Rule 58 of CPC is not maintainable and the order passed by this Court in the review applications has not been complied with and the auction sale process was directed to be continued by the executing Court.

7.It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that having agreed to step into the shoes of the judgment debtor and clear the decreetal amount in entirety, it was not open to the petitioner to even invoke Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC and object to the order of attachment. It is his further submission that the defendant had submitted to a decree a