Punjab & Haryana High Court: Tenant Inducted During Litigation Cannot Resist Execution of Decree Under Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Case Name: Madhubala Soni v. Pardeep Kumar Soni & Others
Date of Judgment: January 7, 2015
Citation: CR No. 4101 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a tenant’s revision petition against an order of the Executing Court and held that a person inducted into possession during the pendency of litigation has no right to obstruct the execution of a decree under the doctrine of lis pendens. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia observed that the objector failed to establish her alleged tenancy prior to the filing of the original suit, and that her possession was clearly created to defeat the decree-holder’s rights. The Court ruled that when objections in execution proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, or intended to delay the decree, the Executing Court is not required to frame issues and may summarily reject them.
Summary: The petitioner, Madhubala Soni, filed objections under Order 21 Rules 99–101 CPC in the execution of a decree for specific performance and possession obtained by the respondent, Pardeep Kumar Soni, concerning a house measuring 91 square yards. The decree had been affirmed by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court. The objector claimed to be a tenant of the judgment debtor since January 1998, paying ₹100 per month, and asserted independent possession supported by a ration card, telephone connection, and municipal records.
The Executing Court dismissed her objections, holding that her alleged possession was subsequent to the filing of the suit (in January 1999) and therefore hit by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court found the documents to be post-litigation and concluded that she was put in possession to obstruct the decree-holder’s rights.
On revision, the High Court upheld the Executing Court’s reasoning, citing Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram (2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 145 and Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust (1998) 3 SCC 723, which affirm that a transferee pendente lite cannot resist execution. Justice Sandhawalia noted that the objector’s reliance on Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (1997) 3 SCC 694 and Shreenath v. Rajesh (1998) 4 SCC 543 was misplaced, as those cases involved independent rights predating the litigation. The Court reiterated that the power to frame issues in execution arises only where genuine questions of right or title exist, not in cases of post-litigation possession.
Decision: The High Court upheld the Executing Court’s order and dismissed the revision petition, affirming that no independent tenancy existed before the litigation and that the petitioner, being a transferee pendente lite, could not obstruct or delay execution of the decree. The Court underscored that the doctrine of lis pendens acts as constructive notice to all subsequent occupants and that frivolous objections in execution can be summarily rejected without framing issues.