TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether objections raised by third parties in execution of the decree were maintainable and required adjudication by the executing court, including the effect of Rule 102 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the doctrine of lis pendens. (ii) Whether interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted with the executing court's order directing enquiry into the objections.
Issue (i): Whether objections raised by third parties in execution of the decree were maintainable and required adjudication by the executing court, including the effect of Rule 102 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the doctrine of lis pendens.
Analysis: Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the executing court to decide questions arising in execution and to determine resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession. The scheme of these provisions is a complete code for adjudicating claims by decree-holders, judgment-debtors and even strangers to the decree. Rule 102 bars the application of Rules 98 and 100 only where resistance or obstruction is by a transferee from the judgment-debtor after institution of the suit. On the facts, the suit had been dismissed for a substantial period before restoration, and the asserted transfers during the period when no lis was pending required evidence and factual adjudication. The effect of the Land Tribunal purchase certificate and the respondents' asserted rights also required examination by the executing court.
Conclusion: The objections were held to be maintainable for enquiry, and the executing court was to proceed to adjudicate them on merits. This finding is against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted with the executing court's order directing enquiry into the objections.
Analysis: The impugned order did not finally decide the rights of the parties but only held that the objections warranted adjudication. The Court found no legal infirmity in that prima facie view. It also reiterated that special leave jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the available remedy at the High Court in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Conclusion: No interference was called for with the executing court's order. This finding is against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The decree-holder's challenge failed, the executing court's order was sustained, and the execution proceedings were left to continue before the executing court on their own merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Objections by third parties in execution must be adjudicated by the executing court under Order XXI where a prima facie case for enquiry is shown, and Rule 102 excludes only those transferees clearly shown to have derived title from the judgment-debtor after institution of the suit.
TaxTMI 
