ANUJA KHANDELWAL
BC0170009
DALIP KAUR V JEEVAN RAM
Facts :
One Lachhman filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the land which had been
sold to respondents I to 5 A part of this land had been sold by respondents 1 to 5 to
respondents 6 to 21. The suit for possession by pre-emption was decreed by the trial Court on
August 22, 1983. In pursuance to this decree, Lachhman took possession of the suit land on
October 6, 1983. The appeal filed by respondents 1 to 5 was dismissed by the learned District
Judge on March 18, 1985. The second appeal to this Court was dismissed on September 26,
1985. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 5 filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Leave was granted. The appeal of respondents 1 to 5 was accepted vide
order, dated October 5, 1989. Accordingly, the suit filed by Lachhman was dismissed. The
appellants along with respondents 22 and 23 filed objections alleging that they had purchased
the suit land from Lachhman. Being bona fide purchasers for consideration, the petition
under Section 144 of the Code was not competent. Respondents 1 to 21 filed reply to the
objections and pleaded that the matter was governed by the principle of lis pendens. The
same was rejected by the Trial Court. So, the appellants have approached the Supreme Court
by way of an SLP under Art 136 of the Constitution.
Issues Raised:
The main contention of this appeal is whether the doctrine of Lis Pendens applicable to SLPs
filed in the Supreme Court
Arguments by the Counsels:
The counsel for the appellants contended that the principle of Lis Pendens does not apply to
the present proceedings. He placed reliance on the case of Mewa Singh v. Jagir Singh1
wherein it was held that after the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the appellants, the
proceedings became pending and were in continuation of the original suit.
Ratio Decidendi:
1 Mew Singh v Jagir Singh A.I.R. 1971 P&H 244.
