RAJ KUMAR versus SARDARI LAL

RAJ KUMAR versus SARDARI LAL

A transferee pendente lite, though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside a decree passed ex parte against the transferor-defendant, as such a person is recognized as having locus standi under Section 146 CPC and remains bound by the decree. Order 9 Rule 13's term 'he' must be construed to include such persons, and the rejection of locus standi is incorrect.

Parties
Appellant: Raj Kumar; Respondent: Sardari Lal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, Section 146 CPC, Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, Lis Pendens, Ex Parte Decree, Locus Standi of Transferee Pendente Lite
Civil Procedure Property Law Order 9 Rule 13 CPC Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Section 146 CPC Section 52 Transfer of Property Act Lis Pendens Ex Parte Decree +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Kumar

Appellant

Sardari Lal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a transferee pendente lite not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC is entitled to apply under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree against the transferor

Ratio Decidendi

A transferee pendente lite, though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside a decree passed ex parte against the transferor-defendant, as such a person is recognized as having locus standi under Section 146 CPC and remains bound by the decree. Order 9 Rule 13's term 'he' must be construed to include such persons, and the rejection of locus standi is incorrect.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.