Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXI Rules 97, 101 — Claim petition in execution — Scope of enquiry
An executing court is not bound to conduct a full-fledged trial or record evidence in every claim petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. The court may adjudicate the claim on the basis of admitted facts, pleadings, and material already on record, and record evidence only if it considers such enquiry necessary.
(Paras 27–29)
Execution proceedings — Summary dismissal of claim petition
Where the claim petition is barred by principles flowing from earlier final adjudications, suppression of material facts, and lis pendens, the executing court is justified in summarily dismissing the claim petition without recording evidence.
(Paras 22–23, 29–30)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Lis pendens
A purchaser pendente lite, with full knowledge of pending litigation, cannot acquire or assert independent rights so as to obstruct execution of a decree. Such purchaser is bound by the outcome of the litigation.
(Para 22)
Execution — Res judicata / finality of litigation
A claim petition raising issues already adjudicated and rejected up to the Supreme Court cannot be reopened in execution proceedings under the guise of a fresh claim.
(Paras 8–12, 22–23)
Fraud on Court — Re-agitation — Limits
Though fraud vitiates judicial proceedings, allegations of fraud which have already been raised and rejected in earlier rounds of litigation cannot be reagitated in execution proceedings, particularly by a successor-in-interest.
(Paras 19, 26)
Order XXI Rule 97 CPC — Questions to be adjudicated
The executing court is obliged to determine only such questions as legally arise between the decree holder and the obstructor. The court is not required to decide every question raised by the obstructor merely because it is asserted.
(Paras 28–29)
Execution proceedings — Abuse of process
A claim petition filed by a pendente lite purchaser, after repeated failures of its vendor and predecessor-in-interest, amounts to an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be dismissed.
(Paras 22–23, 30)
Appeal under Section 96 CPC — Interference
In a first appeal, interference is not warranted where the executing court has exercised jurisdiction correctly, applied settled legal principles, and recorded cogent reasons for summary dismissal of the claim petition.
(Paras 27–32)
ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)
-
Background and finality of partition decree (Paras 2–7)
The partition suit in O.S.No.299 of 1993 culminated in a preliminary decree, final decree, dismissal of appeals by the High Court, and dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court. Thus, rights in respect of Plaint-B schedule property attained finality. -
First interlude — Claim by Jai Bharat Traders (Paras 8–10)
Jai Bharat Traders filed a claim petition resisting execution, asserting ownership. The claim was dismissed by the executing court, confirmed by the High Court in A.S.No.722 of 2010, and finally rejected by the Supreme Court. -
Second interlude — Pendente lite sale (Paras 10–12)
During pendency of A.S.No.722 of 2010, Jai Bharat Traders sold the disputed property to Sri Bharati Warehousing Corporation, which was impleaded in the appeal and participated fully. Its SLP was later withdrawn. -
Fresh claim petition by Bharati Warehousing Corporation (Paras 13–21)
The appellant filed E.A.No.155 of 2017 asserting independent title, alleging fraud and interpolation of records, and sought to resist delivery. The decree holder sought summary dismissal via E.A.No.235 of 2017. -
Findings of the executing court (Paras 22–23)
The executing court held the appellant to be a pendente lite purchaser bound by Section 52 TPA, found the claim barred by earlier adjudications, and dismissed the claim petition summarily. -
Core legal issue before High Court (Paras 27–29)
Whether dismissal of the claim petition without recording evidence violated law. -
Application of Silverline Forum principle (Paras 28–29)
Relying on Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, the Court held that adjudication under Order XXI Rule 97 need not involve evidence in every case and may be based on material already on record. -
Fraud allegations (Para 26)
Allegations of fudging court records were held to be beyond the scope of the present appeal, having been raised and rejected earlier. -
Conclusion (Paras 31–32)
Delivery of property was already effected; the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
An executing court is not mandatorily required to conduct a full-fledged trial or record evidence in every claim petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.
-
A pendente lite purchaser, with knowledge of ongoing litigation, is bound by the decree and cannot assert independent rights to obstruct execution.
-
Issues finally adjudicated up to the Supreme Court cannot be reopened in execution proceedings by successors-in-interest.
-
Allegations of fraud, once raised and rejected in earlier litigation, cannot be reagitated in execution proceedings.
-
Summary dismissal of a claim petition is legally permissible where the claim is barred by finality, lis pendens, and abuse of process.
-
A first appellate court will not interfere where the executing court has exercised jurisdiction in accordance with settled principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment