The Madras High Court clarified that an executing court cannot set aside a decree for specific performance based on a judgment that did not address the underlying sale agreement. The court held that a pendente lite purchaser lacks an independent right to resist execution under Section 47 CPC, and that Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is inapplicable where no order of attachment exists. The revision petitions challenging the execution court’s order were allowed, restoring the execution petition for disposal within three months.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from an agreement of sale dated 8 September 2005 for immovable property in Tiruppur. The plaintiff (Anuradha) filed O.S. No.91 of 2012 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, seeking specific performance of the agreement. The defendants did not contest the suit, leading to an ex parte decree dated 17 August 2017, which granted the plaintiff two months to deposit the balance sale consideration of ₹60,00,000 and directed the defendants to execute a sale deed upon such deposit.
Key Facts
- The plaintiff deposited the balance amount as permitted by the court, and the decree became final.
- Execution Proceedings (E.P. No.35 of 2019) were initiated to enforce the decree for specific performance.
- The first respondent in CRP No.1146 of 2024 (the purchaser) acquired the suit property from the defendants via a registered sale deed dated 22 January 2016 (Doc. No.743 of 2016) for consideration.
- The purchaser contended that the suit sale agreement was void and unenforceable, relying on the Second Appeal judgment in S.A. No.1463 of 1982, which allegedly nullified the agreement.
- The purchaser filed an objection application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC, seeking dismissal of the execution petition.
- The Executing Court allowed the objection and dismissed E.P. No.35 of 2019 by order dated 1 December 2023.
- The plaintiff filed revision petitions CRP Nos.1146 and 1147 of 2024 challenging that order.
- Separately, the defendants had earlier filed CRP No.2269 of 2023 challenging the trial court’s order dated 28 April 2023 that refused to condone a delay of 567 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Procedural History
- 08.09.2005: Agreement of sale executed between the parties.
- 2012: O.S. No.91 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance.
- 17.08.2017: Trial court decreed the suit ex parte, granting two months to deposit balance consideration of ₹60,00,000.
- 05.04.2019: Defendants received notice of the ex parte decree via Execution Proceedings.
- 08.04.2019: Defendants filed I.A. No.419 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and to set aside the ex parte decree.
- 28.04.2023: Trial court dismissed I.A. No.419 of 2019, holding insufficient cause shown.
- 2019: Execution Petition E.P. No.35 of 2019 filed by the plaintiff.
- Date unspecified: Purchaser filed objection under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC.
- 01.12.2023: Executing Court allowed the objection and dismissed E.P. No.35 of 2019.
- 2024: Revision petitions CRP Nos.1146 and 1147 of 2024 filed by the plaintiff challenging the Executing Court’s order.
- 2023: CRP No.2269 of 2023 filed by defendants challenging the trial court’s order dated 28.04.2023.
- 11.09.2026: Judgment pronounced by the Madras High Court.
Relief Sought
In CRP No.2269 of 2023, the defendants sought to set aside the trial court’s order dated 28 April 2023 refusing condonation of delay. In CRP Nos.1146 and 1147 of 2024, the plaintiff sought to set aside the Executing Court’s order dated 1 December 2023, to restore E.P. No.35 of 2019 for disposal, and to have the Executing Court proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Executing Court was justified in allowing the objection application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC, based on the Second Appeal judgment in S.A. No.1463 of 1982 which allegedly nullified the suit sale agreement. Further, the court had to determine whether a pendente lite purchaser could claim an independent right to resist execution of a decree for specific performance, and whether the trial court’s refusal to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was correct.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellant contended that the Second Appeal judgment in S.A. No.1463 of 1982 dealt solely with an injunction suit and made no reference to the suit sale agreement; therefore, it could not be relied upon to nullify the agreement. The appellant argued that Order 21 Rule 58 CPC applies only to adjudication of claims or objections to attachment of properties, and since no order of attachment existed in the execution proceedings, the provision was inapplicable. Relying on Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram & Others (2008) 7 SCC 144 and Pradeep Mehra vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa (2023) SCC Online SC 1395, the appellant submitted that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree to examine its validity when the decree was passed by a competent court. Furthermore, citing Danesh Singh’s case (referred to in the judgment) and Alka Shrirang Chavan’s case (2026) SCC Online SC 55, the appellant asserted that a pendente lite purchaser cannot maintain a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC due to the bar under Rule 102 of Order 21 CPC, and that the purchaser’s title remains subject to the decree. The appellant also argued that Section 47 CPC does not confer an independent right on a purchaser to challenge executability, as held in B.Renushree’s case (2018) SCC OnLine Mad 12978 and P.Deivasigamani’s case (2022) 14 SCC 793.
For the Respondent
The respondent maintained that the Second Appeal judgment in S.A. No.1463 of 1982 had rendered the sale agreement between the plaintiff and defendants void and unenforceable, as the plaintiff herself had admitted her sister was a co-owner, thereby defeating any claim to injunction and, by extension, to specific performance. Consequently, the decree for specific performance was incapable of execution. The respondent submitted that, as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the pending litigation, he could step into the shoes of the judgment debtor and resist execution under Section 47 CPC. The respondent further argued that the suit itself was barred by limitation, a defence not considered by the trial court, and that the Executing Court had correctly dismissed the execution petition on these grounds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the trial court’s order dated 28 April 2023 refusing condonation of delay. It found that the defendants had not shown sufficient cause, noting that even assuming a three-month period of immobility due to jaundice, there was no explanation for the long silence from July/August 2017 until the application was filed on 8 April 2019, almost two years later. The Court therefore upheld the dismissal of CRP No.2269 of 2023.
Turning to the main issue, the Court scrutinized the Second Appeal judgment in S.A. No.1463 of 1982. It observed:
"I have gone through the said judgment, I find that it was a suit filed by Subbathal, as plaintiff for a bare injunction. ... I do not find any reference whatsoever to the suit sale agreement in the entire judgment in S.A. No.1463 of 1982."
Accordingly, the Executing Court’s reliance on that judgment to nullify the sale agreement was misplaced. The Court emphasized that a decree passed by a competent court binds not only the litigating parties but also those who derive title under them, citing Usha Sinha’s case:
"The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a decision of the Court in a suit shall be binding not only on the litigating party, 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that a purchaser during pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct execution of the decree passed by a competent Court and that no independent right is available to such purchaser."
The Court further held that Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is limited to adjudication of claims or objections concerning attachment of properties. Since no order of attachment existed in the execution proceedings, the provision could not be invoked. Even treating the objection as one under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, the bar under Rule 102 of Order 21 CPC prevents a pendente lite purchaser from resisting execution, as affirmed in Alka Shrirang Chavan’s case.
Finally, the Court noted that Section 47 CPC does not empower a purchaser to challenge the executability of a decree unless the purchaser is a representative of a judgment debtor, which was not the case here. The Executing Court had therefore erred in allowing the objection and dismissing the execution petition.
The Verdict
The Madras High Court dismissed CRP No.2269 of 2023, upholding the trial court’s order dated 28 April 2023 that refused condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It allowed CRP Nos.1146 and 1147 of 2024, setting aside the Executing Court’s order dated 1 December 2023 and restoring Execution Petition No.35 of 2019. The Executing Court is directed to dispose of the execution petition within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pendente Lite Purchaser Cannot Resist Execution
The judgment clarifies that a purchaser of property during the pendency of litigation lacks an independent right to obstruct execution of a decree for specific performance. Even if the purchaser is bonafide and without notice, his title remains subject to the decree. Practitioners should therefore anticipate that objections under Section 47 CPC or Order 21 Rule 58 CPC will fail where the underlying decree was passed by a competent court and the purchaser’s acquisition occurred after the suit was filed.
Scope of Order 21 Rule 58 CPC Limited to Attachment Proceedings
The court emphasized that Order 21 Rule 58 CPC applies only to adjudication of claims or objections concerning attachment of properties. In the absence of an order of attachment, the provision cannot be invoked to challenge the executability of a decree. Litigants must ensure that an attachment order exists before relying on this rule, otherwise the objection is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
Executing Court Must Rely on Relevant Findings
The Executing Court erred by relying on a judgment that did not address the suit sale agreement. The decision underscores that an executing court cannot go behind a decree to re-examine matters already decided by a competent court unless the judgment expressly deals with the subject matter. Parties should be prepared to challenge such reliance by pointing out the absence of any reference to the disputed agreement in the cited judgment.
