NEW DELHI vs With respondent-Kiran Abnashi Chawla. Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Adv.

Shrivastava Debtor No. 3 Mr. Harinder Pal Decree Holder Respondent No. 1 Singh Chawla (Deceased) Thr. Ms. Kiran Abnashi Chawla Mr. Vineet Objector/Judgment Respondent No. 2 Tiwari Debtor No. 1 Ms. Nirmal Objector/Judgment Respondent No. 3 Chawla Daniere Debtor No. 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:13.02.2025 11:22:59 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Ex. F. A. 08/2019: Vineet Tiwari v. Harinder Pal Singh (Now deceased and represented by Ms. Kiran Abnashi Chawla) Name Before Executing Before this Court Party Court Mr. Vineet Tiwari Objector/Judgment Appellant Debtor No. 1 Mr. Harinder Pal Decree Holder Respondent No. 1 Singh Chawla (Deceased) Thr. Ms. Kiran Abnashi Chawla Ms. Nirmal Objector/Judgment Respondent No. 2 Chawla Daniere Debtor No. 2 Mr. Aakarsh Objector/ Judgment Respondent No. 3 Shrivastava Debtor No. 3

2. The appellants/objectors were Mr. Vineet Tiwari, Judgment Debtor No.1 (hereinafter referred to as JD-1), and Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Judgment Debtor No.3 (hereinafter referred to as JD-3), respectively. Notably, the appellant/JD-3, Mr. Aakarsh Srivatava, in EX.F.A. 9/2019 is the subsequent transferee/assignee of JD-1. The objections were filed against the execution of the decree in judgment dated 26.04.2012, passed by this Court in CRP No. 65/2007. The legal battle concerns a part of the ground floor portion of H. No. N-258, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:13.02.2025 11:22:59 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Greater Kailash-I, described as a ‘two-room garage block with front and rear lawns’ (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Rao, appearing on behalf of the respondent/Decree Holder (hereinafter referred to as DH) urges the Court to first rule on his objection to the maintainability of these first appeals. Hence, the parties have extensively argued on the said issue.

4. The learned counsel, draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 21.10.2021, and submits the objection of maintainability of these appeals was raised at the earliest available opportunity.

5. According to him, the appellant/JD-3, Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, is a transferee pendente lite, and appellant/JD-1 Mr. Vineet Tiwari, is a JD. Therefore, they both stand obligated by the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012. He further submits that an order passed under Section 47 read with Rule 35 of Order XXI of the CPC cannot be construed to be a decree.

6. Learned counsel submits that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as TPA) mandates that during the pendency of a suit, till the complete satisfaction or discharge of the final decree, 'the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court'. He submits that under no circumstances, the transferee pendente lite 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:13.02.2025 11:22:59 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV could have contested the right of the Decree-Holder over the suit property.

7. He submits that Order XXI Rule 102 renders the adjudication mechanism, enshrined under Order XXI Rule 98 to Rule 100 of the CPC, inapplicable to the transferee pendente lite. According to him, Order XXI Rule 102 of the CPC, 1908 stipulates that the effect of Order XXI Rule 103 of the CPC does not extend to a transferee pendente lite, implying that the protections and procedures outlined in Rule 103 are not extendable to any individual to whom the property has been transferred during the pendency of the suit. To substantiate his argument, he places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust & Anr3, Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram & Anr.4 and Tej Pal Singh vs. Hardit Singh5.

8. On the other hand, Mr. P. D. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing in EX.F.A. 8/2019, on behalf of the appellant/JD-1 submits that the appellant herein is admittedly, a JD and therefore, the decision on any objection under Order XXI Rule 98 of the CPC, 1908 by the Executing Court is appealable in view of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 103 of the CPC. He submits that he raised a specific objection before the Executing Court and the said objection was not countered, therefore, at this stage, the respondent/DH cannot raise any objection