Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Claims raised by an obstructer including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court MANU/SC/1186/2021 - (06 Dec 2021) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N. Nanjappa and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The BDA has preferred the present appeals feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the original applicant – Bangalore Development Authority ( ‘BDA’) and has confirmed the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by BDA under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution Case filed by Respondent No.1 herein (decree holder) against Respondent No.2 herein (judgment debtor). 
As per Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 CPC and relevant to the adjudication of the application shall have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application. For that, a separate suit is not required to be filed. 
In the instant case, it is the specific case of the Appellant – BDA that pursuant to the acquisition of the land in question, the BDA has become the absolute owner and the said land is vested in the BDA and possession was already taken over by the BDA and the land was handed over to the Engineering Section. Therefore, the applications submitted by BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and the obstruction against handing over the possession to the decree holder were required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court by impleading the BDA as a party to the execution proceedings. 
Though, in the present case, a substantive suit being filed by the BDA against the decree holder and the judgment debtor to declare the lease agreement as null and void is pending, irrespective of the same, considering Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, the question relating to right, title or interest of the BDA in the suit property was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court. The order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by the BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and/or dismissing the obstruction application, and the impugned order passed by the High Court, are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. 
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Appellant herein – BDA and order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by BDA for impleadment as well as dismissing obstruction application are quashed and set aside. The Appellant is permitted to be impleaded in the execution proceedings. Appeals allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Execution proceedings, obstructer, Adjudication</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>