Subsequent Purchaser During Pendency of Litigation and Doctrine of Lis Pendens.
 |
| Lis of pendens |
دورانِ مقدمہ جائیداد کی فروخت، اصولِ لیس پینڈنس اور بعد ازاں خریدار کا فریق بننے کا حق
مقدمے کے پس منظر
قانونی سوال
عدالت کا تجزیہ
اصولِ لیس پینڈنس کی حدود
قدرتی انصاف کا اصول
متضاد نظائر کا اصول
حتمی فیصلہ
قانونی اہمیت
Must read judgement
2026 C 1. C 109
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
JAMIA MASJID HANFIA ATTOCK through President ---Petitioner
Versus
Mst. SURRAYA BIBI and 2 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No. 1133 of 2024, heard on 18th June, 2025.
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
12
Procedure Code of 1908), Ss.107, 115 115 & 146 & 0.1, R.10 & O.XXII, R.1 purchaser/vendee during pendency of appeal Subsequent purchaser/vendee claiming impleadment in appellate proceedings O.XXII, R.10-Alienation of suit property to subsequent impleaded as a party to the pending proceedings Facts in brevity were that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 plaintiffs filed a suit for Legality-Lis pendens, doctrine of Applicability and scope-Rule of lis pendens cannot preclude a subsequent vendee from being declaration which was decreed in their favour, while a similar suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed-During the pendency of respondents appeal, respondent No.3 (subsequent vendee) purchased the suit property from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and moved an application under O. IR. 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as under 5.52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, arguing that the purchaser was neither a necessary nor proper party-as an appellant-Petitioner opposed the said application by invoking the doctrine of nt-Petitioner opposed the Appellate court allowed impleadment of respondent No. 3 (subsequent vendee) Substantial question of law placed for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the subsequent purchaser of the suit property, having acquired the same during pendency of litigation, could be impleaded as a party to the proceedings under O. I K. 10, CPC. despite being bound by the doctrine of lispendens?---Held: By virtue of $.146 of the C.P.C. where any proceeding might be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding might be taken or the application might be made by or against any person claiming under him Furthermore, O. I of the C.P.C. dealt with the parties to suits and sub-rule (2) of R. 10 of 0. I of the C.P.C. postulated that the court could at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as might have appeared to the court to be just, order st, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plair laintiff or de or defendant, be be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court might be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added-To this effect reference could also be made to O. XXII R. 10 of the C.P.C. which regulated the procedure of the suit and provided that in case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit might, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest had come or devolved-Moreover, S.107 of the C.P.C. bestowed powers upon the appellate court as conferred and imposed by the C.P.C. on court of original jurisdictions in respect of suits instituted therein subject to conditions and limitations prescribed therein--After having a brief survey of the above noted provisions of law, there remained no cavil to hold that transfer or alienation of the property pending proceedings and seekin oceedings and seeking impleading in the array of parties by the subsequent vendee were two distinct and different phenomena and were to be dealt with independently in the light thereof---Approach of District Court while allowing the application under O. I R. 10 of the C.P.C. moved by the respondent/applicant was completely in consonance with law and the petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity, justifying interference by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction-Resultantly revision petitions failed and were dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)...
-S.52-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R.10---Alienation of suit property to subsequent vendee during pendency of litigation-Lis pendens Principle Impleadment of subsequent vendee in the pending proceedings Effect, validity and scope A subsequent purchaser cannot claim any independent right or interest as compared to his transferor (vendor) but at the same time he is not precluded to claim his impl 1 to claim his impleadment party in the pending proceedings because use if if his transferor to keep himself aloof from the right to defend his cause and it would naturally offend the principle of natural justice. proceedings after parting wi with his rights and interests in the property latter if not allowed to be impleaded would be deprived of his
Rashid Ahmad v. Mst. Jiwan and 5 others 1997 SCMR 171 and Muhammad Shahban and others v. Falak Sher and others 2007 SCMR 882 rel.
(c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
or so as to -S.52-Alienation of suit property during pendency of litigation---Lis pendens---Principle---Applicability, object and scope--Subsequent purchaser/vendee's consequentposition and interest in the suit property-Legal effect and validity Subsequent vendee wound be bound by the outcome of pending proceedings and would steps into the shoes of the transferor without acquiring any independent right against the original parties-Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the Act 1882) ordains that during the pendency in any court having authority in Pakistan or established beyond the limits of Pakistan by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suiter proceeding of the affect the rights of f any other hich may be made therein, except the authority court and on such te terms as it may impose From the bare perusal of 5.52 of the Act, 1882 it clearly manifests that the very purpose and object of this provision is to protect the parties to the litigation against alienation of the property by their opposing party during the pendency of the litigation, so as to avoid deprivation of any right or interest of such party which he ultimately may be held entitled to by the court on the one hand and on the other to stop the adversary from alienating the property to a person alien to proceedings as it would result into an endless litigation---Prime principle embodied in 5.52 of the Act, 1882 is that if somebody purchases the property during the pendency of the litigation, he is bound to follow the decision of the court as his purchaser and he has to swim and sink together with his transferor and Would be be precluded to ided to claim any independent right or protection in the garh of such transfer of properfy-Section 52 of the Act, 1882 thus safeguards the rights and interests of the parties to litigation and discourages the alienation of the property subject matter of litigation to be alienated during the pendency. would be
Mst. Tabassum Shaheen v. Mst. Uzma Rahat and others 2012 SCMR 983; Farzand Ali and another v. Khuda Bakhsh and others PLD 2015 SC 187 and Rashid Ahmad v. Mst. Jiwan and 5 others 1997 SCMR 171 rel
(d) Precedent-
-Conflicting legal views by Benches of equal strength-Effect-Later view to prevail-When there are conflicting views with regard to question of law of Bench comprising of equal members of judges, the view of the latter will prevail.
Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik v. Shaukat Aziz and 6 others 2007 CLC 1192; Mst. Hira Rehman v. Chancellor, Government College University, Lahore and 2 others 2011 CLC 377 and Muharnımad Hanif and 2 others v. Muhammad Sadiq 14 others 2019 MLD ref
Ahmed Nawaz Khan for Applicant.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Sardar Bilal Firdous for Respondent No. 3.