MUHAMMAD SADIQ (deceased) vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH S — 2025 SCMR 2095 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD SADIQ (deceased) VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH S. 52---Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), S. 13---Pre-emption suit---Dispute over actual sale consideration---Suit dismissed for non-prosecution---Restoration of suit---Alienation of property during interregnum---Effect and legality---Lis pendens---Principle---Applicability---Alienation of suit property after dismissal of suit for non-prosecution and before its restoration falls within the sphere of lis pendens---Factual background of present case was that appellants / plaintiffs (pre-emptors) filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against respondent No. 5 (vendor) regarding the suit land claiming the sale price was Rs.200,000, while respondent No.5 asserted that it was Rs.250,000---Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and was later on restored---After dismissal of suit and before its restoration, respondent No.5 (vendor) sold the property to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (subsequent vendees)---During pendency of the suit, respondent No. 5 (vendor) made a statement before the trial court that the original vendor could be summoned to confirm the actual sale consideration and that whatever amount the vendor admitted to have received could be treated as the sale price for decreeing the suit---The only question before the Trial Court requiring determination was the price of the suit land and respondent No.5 had no objection if the original vendor was summoned for ascertaining the actual amount of sale, but the Trial Court did not accede to the request of the appellant and proceeded to frame the issues---Trial Court dismissed the said request but the revisional court accepted it, decreeing the suit---Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (subsequent vendees) challenged the revisional court verdict before the High Court, whereby, the decree was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits, prompting the present appeal by the preemptor concerning the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens---Primary question warranting determination before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the pre-emption suit despite a stay order, were bound by the statement of their predecessor-in-interest under the rule of lis pendens, and whether the appellant (pre-emptor), who had already deposited the amount of Rs.250,000/- in compliance with that statement, could claim that the transaction was struck by lis pendens and was entitled to have the suit decreed?"---Held: So far as the argument that the property was purchased during the period when the suit was dismissed, therefore, the principle of lis pendens did not apply to the case of the subsequent buyers, the said argument had no force, because if a suit was dismissed and then restored, the restoration order related to back period and a transfer/sale after dismissal and before restoration was subjected to the principle of lis pendens embodied in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---However, in the present case, the petitioners purchased the disputed property through a mutation when the proceedings in the suit were in progress after its restoration after dismissal for non-prosecution---Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had acquired the title to the suit property subject to the final outcome of the lis and as such were bound by the result of the suit stricto sensu in all respects, as their transferor i.e. respondent No.5 was bound---High Court erred in law while passing the impugned order, which suffered from material illegality, therefore, same could not be allowed to sustain further---Resultantly, the impugned order was set aside and appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD SADIQ (deceased) vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH S — 2025 SCMR 2095 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR