Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Government of Orissa VS Ashok Transport Agency...
Checking relevance for Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna...
Checking relevance for Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. VS Katta Sujatha Reddy...
Checking relevance for H. Anjanappa VS A. Prabhakar...
H. Anjanappa VS A. Prabhakar - 2025 2 Supreme 592 : A legal representative or transferee who is brought on record during the pendency of a suit continues to represent the interest of the original party until the execution of the decree. This is supported by the principle that a transferee pendente lite, though not arrayed as a party, is still a person claiming under the defendant and is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against the transferor. The law recognizes that such a transferee is bound by the proceedings and the result of the litigation, even if unrepresented, and that the right to be brought on record under Section 146 of the CPC is a beneficent provision to advance justice. The continuation of representation is valid until the decree is executed, as the transferee''''s interest remains subservient to the pending litigation and the decree is enforceable against the transferee or assignee of the judgment-debtor regardless of when the transfer occurred.Checking relevance for Usha Sinha VS Dina Ram...
Usha Sinha VS Dina Ram - 2008 2 Supreme 710 : A legal representative brought on record during the pendency of a suit continues to represent the party until the execution of the decree. This is implied by the court''''s consistent application of Order XXI, Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which bars transferees of judgment debtors from resisting execution of a decree passed during the pendency of litigation. The court emphasizes that once a person becomes a transferee pendente lite (during the pendency of the suit), they are bound by the outcome of the suit and cannot resist execution of the decree. The principle ensures that a decree holder can realize the fruits of the decree without obstruction from those who acquired interest in the property while litigation was ongoing. The court further clarifies that such transferees, even if they later file their own suit, cannot use the pendency of their suit as a shield against execution of an earlier valid decree. Thus, representation by a legal representative remains effective throughout the process, including during execution, unless formally withdrawn or replaced.Checking relevance for Raj Kumar VS Sardari Lal...
Raj Kumar VS Sardari Lal - 2004 1 Supreme 532 : A legal representative brought on record during the pendency of a suit continues to represent the interest of the party until the execution of the decree. This is supported by the principle that a lis pendens transferee, though not formally brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, is treated as a representative-in-interest of the judgment debtor and remains bound by the decree. Furthermore, Section 146 of the CPC allows proceedings to be taken by or against any person claiming under a party, which includes a transferee pendente lite. Such a person, even if not formally on record, retains the right to move applications (e.g., under Order 9 Rule 13) to set aside an ex-parte decree, and their representative status continues until the decree is executed. The law recognizes that the transferee''''s interest is protected throughout the litigation and execution process, ensuring continuity of representation.Checking relevance for KIRPAL KAUR VS JITENDER PAL SINGH...
KIRPAL KAUR VS JITENDER PAL SINGH - 2015 6 Supreme 415 : Under Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when there is a devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may be continued by or against the person upon whom the interest has devolved only with the leave of the court. However, if no such application is made for leave, the suit may still be continued with the original party, and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree. This means that a legal representative brought on record during the pendency of a suit continues to represent the interest until the execution of the decree, even if they do not formally seek leave to be brought on record, provided the original party continues to represent the suit. The principle is that the suit is not abated and the devolution of interest does not automatically terminate the proceedings, but the person acquiring the interest is bound by the decree and may benefit from it without needing to formally intervene, as long as the suit proceeds with the original party.Checking relevance for Smt. Santosh Awasthi Vs. Smt. Urmila Jain...
Checking relevance for Santosh Awasthi vs Urmila Jain...
Checking relevance for Madan Lal Suryawanshi vs Tara Devi...
Madan Lal Suryawanshi vs Tara Devi - Delhi (2022) : The legal representative brought on record during the pendency of a suit continues to represent the party until the execution of the decree. This is supported by the court''''s emphasis on the continuity of representation in execution proceedings, particularly where the original party (e.g., the decree holder) dies during the pendency of execution. The court held that the legal heirs of the deceased decree holder, even if they were not initially aware of the execution proceedings, could be allowed to substitute in the proceedings despite delay, as the legal representative''''s role persists until the decree is fully executed. The court stressed that execution proceedings require a different, more flexible approach than original proceedings, and that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The continuity of representation is implied in the court''''s recognition that the legal representative''''s status remains valid until the decree is executed, especially when the original party dies and the heirs step in to continue the process.
