JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag, J.
(1) This revision petition is directed against the orderdated 23.12.1989 passed by Shri Y.S. Jonwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class. Delhi where by he has upheld the objections filed under Order 21, Rule 58 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein-Shri Lekh Ram.
(2) The short facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner-Jit Ram Sharma-filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No. 1 herein Gyan Chand on 24.6.1968 restraining him from encroaching upon the private gali in question and raising construction over the same. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 22.9.1971 passed by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi. It appears the respondent No. 1-Judgment Debtor-started violating the injunction order and decree dated 22.9.1971 and the petitioner-Decree Holder-filed an execution petition against the Judgment Debtor, viz., respondent No. 1 praying for removal of the alleged encroachment construction. During the pendency of the execution petition, the objector respondent No. 2-Shri Lekh Ram-herein intervened and filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure staling therein that the property sought to be attached for satisfaction of the decree of the suit has been purchased by him even prior to the passing of the decree in the main suit in1991 and, therefore, he was the owner of the property. Since the objector was not a party to the suit filed on 24.6.1968 by petitioner against respondent No. 1 in which the decree for injunction had been -passed, he was not bound by such decree and, therefore, execution proceedings could not be initiated against him. According to the objector, a decree for permanent injunction is always a personal decree and it is against the personal acts of the party,which cannot be attracted or linked with the property. The objections raised by respondent No, 2 in the execution petition have been upheld vide impugned order and the trial Court has observed that the D.H. may file a separate suit against the objector/applicant for this purpose as the construction/obstruction cannot be removed under the present decree which is totally a personal decree against the J.D. Sb. Gian Chand against his personal acts.Being aggrieved against this order upholding the objections, the petitioner Decree Holder has filed the present revision petition.
(3) Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the respondent No. 2 being a transferee of the property from the original Judgment Debtor is equally bound and liable to be proceeded against in the execution petition. Learned Counsel has relied upon Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 50 the Code of Civil Procedure.
(4) It is no doubt true that the principle is well settled that injunction does not run with the land and in the absence of any statutory provision sucha decree cannot be enforced against the surviving members of a joint family or against a purchaser from a Judgment Debtor. However, this principle has been deviated in the case of legal representatives on the death of Judgment Debtor on the ground of express provision made by Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5) In Amritlal Vadilal v. Kantilal Lalbhai, (AIR 1931 Bom. 280), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court examined the scope of Section 50of the Code of Civil Procedure Code- and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and has held : “IF the transferees from the legal representatives of the original Judgment-debtor joined in execution proceedings under Section 50, CivilP.O.. can be proceeded against in execution on the ground that they are bound by the result of the execution proceedings under Section 52,T.P. Act the transferees from the original judgment-debtor during the pendency of execution proceedings against him can be held to be similarly bound and liable to be proceeded against in execution.”
(6) In Sohan Lal v. Raghunath Prasad and Others, , the Full Bench in paragraph 29 of the judgment has examined the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and its scope and has observed: “TRANSFER by any party to the suit during its pendency cannot affect the rights of any other party to the suit. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree, but this prohibition to transfer applies during the pendency of the suit. The pendency comes to an end inter alia, when complete satisfaction or discharge of any decreehas, inter alia, become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation for execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.”
(7) In this very paragraph, the Court has also referred to Gulzartlalv. Madho Ram, (1904) 2nd 26 All. 447) wherein it has been held : “THE word ‘representative’, when taken with reference to the judgment-debtor, does not mean only his legal representative, thatis, his heir, executor or administrator, but means his representative-in-interest and includes a purchaser of his interest whether by private sale or Court auction, but so far as his interest is concerned,he is bound by that decree.”
(8) In the present case, it appears that the transfer took place prior to the date of passing of the decree but during the pendency of the suit. At anyrate, the decree has not been satisfied as yet and for the execution thereof the present revision has been filed. Therefore, the transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree.
(9) In view of the law laid down by the aforementioned High Courts and having regard to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 2, being a transferee of the original Judgment Debtor during the pendency of the suit, can also be held to be similarly bound as the original Judgment Debtor and liable to be proceeded against in execution proceedings along with the original Judgment Debtor.
(10) As a result of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the executing Court is directed to consider the case in accordance with law.
(11) Parties to appear before the executing Court on 15/03/1993.
(12) Trial Court record be sent back immediately.