Purchasers pendente lite - could not get any additional right than what their vendor possessed - Order 21 Rule 102 clearly bars pendente lite transferee from resisting or obstructing execution of decree.

Citation

(2022) 3 MLJ 514 

2022(3) CTC 477 

2022(2)MWN(CIVIL) 676

LNIND 2022 MAD 1536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Present:Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh 

SA. No. 234 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014

30th March, 2022

Cannou Parimala Rani @ Mary Rosay Parimala Rani

Versus

Ilamathy and Others

Respondents

Civil Procedure- Execution proceedings- Removal of obstruction Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 102 Execution Court allowed petition filed to remove obstruction caused by third parties and Court directed obstruction caused by 8th Respondent and subsequent purchaser/9th Respondent/Appellant to be removed Appeal by 9th Respondent dismissed, hence this appeal Whether after auction purchase becomes absolute, Appellant and 11th Respondent who were purchasers pendente-lite would have right to cause obstruction in view of bar contained under Order 21 Rule 102 - Held, both 8th Respondent and Appellant were purchasers pendente lite - They could not get any additional right than what their vendor possessed- Order 21 Rule 98(2) read with Order 21 Rule 102 clearly bars pendente lite transferee from resisting or obstructing execution of decree of possession of immoveable property These provisions were meant to prevent unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection for pendente lite purchaser - Order 21 Rule 102 was absolute bar for Appellant and 11th Respondent to cause obstruction and hence lower Courts were right in ordering removal of obstruction and for handing over possession to 1st to 3rd Respondents - 11th Respondent, Appellant and their vendors had indulged in abuse of process of Court and had virtually toyed with procedural law and successfully dragged on proceedings for more than forty years Compensatory cost imposed for false and vexatious claims and for causing such humongous delay in keeping proceedings pending for more than four decades - Appeal dismissed.Held: Both 8th Respondent and the Appellant are purchasers pendente lite. They cannot get any additional right than what their vendor possessed. Order 21 Rule 98(2) r/w Order 21 Rule 102 clearly bars a pendente lite transferee from resisting or obstructing the execution of a decree of the possession of the immoveable property. These provisions are meant to prevent unfair, inequitable or undeservedMLJ-05-05-2022Postal Page No. 78