LexTAHIR V. ISANI versus MADAN WAMAN CHODANKAR, (SINCE DECEASED) NOW THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2810 : 2025 INSC 1044 Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar, (Since Deceased) Now Through His Legal Representatives & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6391 of 2025) 06 May 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that since the appellant was a transferee pendent lite of judgment debtor, therefore, in view of provisions of Rule 102 of Or.XXI of CPC, the application filed by the appellant under Rules 97 and 101 of Or.XXI CPC was not maintainable. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, RR.97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 – In 1996, respondent no.1-tenant filed a special civil suit no.97/1996/B against MK for dissolution of partnership, recovery of profit and ejectment – No issues relating to ownership of the property which was leased out to respondent no.1 – Appellant herein had purchased the said property not from any party to the said suit, i.e. the plaintiff or defendant, but from owner M/s. R Pvt. Ltd., who was not a party to the proceedings – In the said suit decree was granted in favour of respondent no.1 – Respondent no.1 filed an application for execution of decree – Appellant moved an application u/Or.XXI, Rules 97 and 101 of CPC objecting to execution of decree – Application of respondent no.1 was dismissed by the Executing Court – Aggrieved, decree-holder preferred writ petition – The High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court and it also closed the enquiry – Correctness: Held: The Executing Court was right in rejecting the application of respondent no.1 – The appellant in the present case does not trace his title from the judgment-debtor, i.e. the MK and therefore, he is not a transferee pendente lite of the judgment- debtor – The appellant is a bona fide buyer who had bought [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2811 Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar, (Since Deceased) Now Through His Legal Representatives & Ors. the suit property from M/s R Pvt. Ltd., vide registered sale deed dated 24.04.2007, who traced their title from the original owner, Mrs. M, vide registered sale deed dated 16.01.1988 – The transferor, M/s R Pvt. Ltd., of the appellant was not a party to the suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 97/1996/B, the decree of which has been put to execution – They were third party, having received the ownership rights from the original owner in 1988 – Thus, even if the appellant did buy the subject- property in 2007, during the pendency of the suit between the MK and the present respondents, the bar of Rule 102 of Order XXI does not affect or prohibit the appellant from raising his objections before the Executing Court under Rules 97 and 101 and subsequently receive its adjudication under Rules 98 and 100 – Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Executing Court is directed to proceed with the enquiry – The Executing Court is directed to decide the application u/Or.XXI, Rules 97 and 101 CPC on its own merits. [Paras 14-16] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, R.102 – Scope of – Discussed: Held: The whole scheme of Rule 102 of Order XXI intends to preserve the idea of achieving finality of the judicial decisions – The provision imbibes the principle of “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e., it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation – In a suit pending between a plaintiff and a defendant as to the right to a particular estate, the decision of the court in that case shall be binding not only on the litigating parties, but also on those who derive title under them by alienations (transfer) made while the suit was pending, whether such alienees, i.e. transferees, had or had not notice of the pending proceedings – Therefore, Rule 102 of Order XXI intends to protect the interests of the decree-holder against the attempts of unscrupulous judgment-debtors and their subsequent transferees who indulge in activities and leave no stone unturned to deprive the decree-holders from reaping the benefits of the decree granted in their favour – The Rule being equitable in nature, therefore, estops further creation of rights as it explicitly states that nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to the resistance or obstruction being made by the transferee pendente lite of judgment-debtor. [Para 9] 2812 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, R.102 – Ingredients of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.