JASWANT SINGH Vs. RALLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the objector- petitioner by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside order dated 5.3.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the executing Court dismissing his objections which were preferred under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'). It is appropriate to mention that the decree-holder-respondents (for brevity, 'DH-respondents') filed a civil suit in 1976 which was decreed on 23.8.1980. The judgment and decree has been upheld by this Court. It is also not disputed that the objector-petitioner made an attempt to become party to the aforementioned proceedings but the application was dismissed by this Court. However, at the stage of execution, the objector-petitioner again filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the Code. It has been claimed by the objector-petitioner that he came in possession of land of Khasra No. 61 which is subject matter of judgment and decree dated 23.8.1980, 10-12 years before the filing of objections. The objections were filed on 4.3.2003 which shows that objector-petitioner came in possession of land of Khasra No. 61 somewhere in 1991. The executing Court noticed the argument of the DH-respondents to the effect that the objector-petitioner was not permitted to become party under Order XXI Rule 10 of the Code in para 13 of the impugned order and the same reads as under :-

(2.) IT was further held that according to photocopy of the sale-deed dated 15.6.1990 produced on record, it has not been shown that land in Khasra No. 61 was sold to the objector-petitioner or that they were in possession. In any case, if the land has been purchased during the pendency of the suit filed in 1976, then the principle of lis pendens was applicable as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others, 1996(5) SCC 539.

(3.) MR . Amarjit Markan, learned counsel for the DH-respondents has submitted that there is no general rule of law that in all objections raised by an objector or the judgment-debtor, adjudication like a suit is mandatory. Learned counsel has pointed out that under Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code, a transferee pendente lite of the judgment-debtor has not been held entitled to a detailed adjudication. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and another, 1998(1) RCR(Rent) 394 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 1754.