JAMIA MASJID HANFIA ATTOCK vs Mst — 2026 CLC 109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

JAMIA MASJID HANFIA ATTOCK VS Mst. SURRAYA BIBI S.52---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.107, 115 & 146 & ,O.I, R.10 & O.XXII, R.10---alienation of suit property to subsequent purchaser/vendee during pendency of appeal---Subsequent purchaser/vendee claiming impleadment in appellate proceedings---Legality---Lis pendens, doctrine of---applicability and scope---Rule of lis pendens cannot preclude a subsequent vendee from being impleaded as a party to the pending proceedings---Facts in brevity were that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for 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. I R. 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as an appellant---Petitioner opposed the said application by invoking the doctrine of lis pendens under S.52 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882, arguing that the purchaser was neither a necessary nor proper party---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 R. 10, C.P.C. despite being bound by the doctrine of lispendens?"---Held: By virtue of S.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 O. 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 that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, 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 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.

JAMIA MASJID HANFIA ATTOCK vs Mst — 2026 CLC 109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC