- I Paid A Bribe
- 12 years ago
- 1563 views
VII TH SENIOR CIVIL ********** Mr. **** ******** taken bribe for giving stay in E.A.No.17/2012 In E.P No 257/2007 In O.S No 1738/2006 contrary to judgement of supreme court of india ********** ********** * **** ********** &
- Judiciary
- Favorable Judgement
- Paid INR 300
Mr ************ ********** OF VIITH SENIOR CIVIL ********** CITY CIVIL COURT GRANTED STAY IN E.A NO71/2012 IN E.P NO 257/2007 IN O.S NO 1738/2006 FOR EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION CONTRARY TO JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ********** ********** * **** ********** & OTHERS ON 14/03/2008 Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person. 12. Bare reading of the rule makes it clear that it is based on justice, equity and good conscience. A transferee from a judgment debtor is presumed to be aware of the proceedings before a Court of law. He should be careful before he purchases the property which is the subject matter of litigation. It recognizes the doctrine of lis pendens recognized by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?. Rule 102 of Order XXI of the Code thus takes into account the ground reality and refuses to extend helping hand to purchasers of property in respect of which litigation is pending. If unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree holder will never be able to realize the fruits of his decree. Every time the decree holder seeks a direction from a Court to execute the decree, the judgment debtor or his transferee will transfer the property and the new transferee will offer resistance or cause obstruction. To avoid such a situation, the rule has been enacted. 13. Before one and half century, in Bellamy v. Sabine, (1857) 1 DG & J 566 : 44 ER 847, Lord Cranwoth, L.C. proclaimed that where a litigation is pending between a plaintiff and a defendant as to the right to a particular estate, the necessities of mankind require that the decision of the Court in the suit shall be binding not only on the litigating parties, but also on those who derive title under them by alienations made pending the suit, whether such alienees had or had not notice of the pending proceedings. If this were not so, there could be no certainty that the litigation would ever come to an end.