Prolonged court hours, late-night order writing: Bombay High Court judge explains delay in uploading judgment

A Bombay High Court judge recently cited prolonged court hours, late-night order writing and weekend sittings as reasons for the delay in uploading a judgment on the court website though it was pronounced five months earlier [Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors].In the order published on the court website on May 30, Justice Madhav J Jamdar recorded that despite pronouncing the judgment in open court on December 19 last year, it could not be uploaded until May 30 due to the volume of pending work. He noted that he was routinely hearing matters for over two hours after court hours, finalising orders until late night and continuing to work on weekends and holidays to complete backlog.“As I am conducting the Court at least for 2 - 2 & ½ hours almost every day after regular Court hours, leaving the Chamber after correcting/signing daily orders after 10:30 pm–11:30 pm on almost all the court working days and reading the case papers at my residence up to 02:00 am, reading the case papers in the morning at least for one hour and also attending the Chamber on almost all Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays for completing pending work, uploading of this order is delayed,” the judgment said..The bench was hearing appeals challenging an execution order that directed decree-holders to be handed possession of property in a suit originally filed in 1986 for specific performance of an agreement dated December 24, 1984. During the pendency of the suit, the judgment-debtor executed eight registered sale deeds between May 7, 1987 and August 31, 1987, transferring title to third parties who later sought to resist execution of the 1990 decree..The trial court had decreed specific performance on November 30, 1990, directing the defendant to execute a sale deed and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff. When this was resisted by the purchasers pendente lite during execution, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. The executing court allowed the application and rejected the obstruction, a decision that was affirmed in appeal..Before the High Court, the appellants contended that since they had acquired title through registered sale deeds, the judgment-debtor ceased to have title by the time the 1990 decree was passed. Therefore, they argued the decree could not be enforced against them without they themselves being joined as defendants and directed to execute the conveyance.The High Court rejected this contention, holding that since the sale deeds were executed after the institution of the suit on April 28, 1986, the transactions were governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act..The Court referred to the original 1990 decree, noting that it had explicitly directed execution of a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and handover of possession. It observed that the doctrine of lis pendens applied squarely since the registered sale deeds relied upon by the appellants were executed after the suit had commenced and after a lis pendens notice was registered on May 2, 1986..Justice Jamdar discussed the scope of objections raised in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97–106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially as modified by the Bombay Amendment. He rejected the contention that omission of Rule 102 under the State amendment enabled purchasers pendente lite to defeat the decree-holder’s rights.He noted that under the amended Rule 98(2), the Court is required to direct possession in favour of the decree-holder if it is satisfied that the obstruction was by a transferee pendente lite. “Once the Executing Court determines that the transfer is pendente lite, all consequences which are contemplated under Section 52 of the TP Act mandatorily follow,” the Court held..Justice Jamdar also rejected the argument that the decree was a nullity. The 1990 decree was passed by a competent court in a validly instituted suit against the judgment-debtor, it was held. “If the said submission is accepted, then what is laid down by the Supreme Court in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami in the year 1972… would be undermined,” the Court warned..The appeals were dismissed, with the Court holding that the purchasers had no independent title to resist execution and their interests were entirely subject to the plaintiff’s rights under the decree. The interim relief granted during pendency of the appeals was extended for three months from the date of uploading of the judgment. .The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Nikhil Sakhardande, along with advocates Siddhesh Bhole, Ashish Venugopal and Ashwin Pimpale. The respondents were represented by advocate Rajanish Bhonsale. Advocate Shriram S Kulkarni acted as Amicus Curiae in the matter. .[Read Judgment]