Sabina Alim vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore S — 2026 MLD 201 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.

Sabina Alim VS The Additional District Judge, Lahore S. 52---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10 & O. XXII, R. 10---Property pendente lite, alienation of---Impleading the transferee---Scope and effect---Principle of lispendense---Scope---Assignee and assignor, role of---Petitioner/plaintiff was aggrieved of concurrent orders allowing impleadment of a transferee of suit-property as a defendant---Validity---No doubt under S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the parties to the suit are not entitled to make alienation of the property pendente lite and if any alienation is made the same will be subject to final decision of the suit and that the transferee pendente lite will acquire no better right, and if the suit is ultimately decided against the defendant/vendor of the property the same will be operative against both transferor and transferee pendent lite---It is also a rule that the transferee if impleaded as a party cannot specifically raise any independent ground for relief but could only defend the suit on the grounds available to the transferor and that he will acquire no better title than the transferor and that suit if decreed will inure for the benefit of the plaintiff and against the transferee who will be bound by the decree passed in the suit---If any alienation is made in violation of injunctive order, the court will not only be competent to take penal action against the contemnor but also annul the deed/transfer deed which is made during the pendency of suit in violation of the injunctive order---In the present case, the application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C., was allowed with the observations that the effect of principle of lispendense will be examined by the Court in due course of law and that the impleadment of the transferee was being made for the purpose of effective decision of the case and to save multiplicity of litigation between the parties---The order for impleadment was passed on the principle that "assignee can continue the suit in place of the assignor" as per O.XXII, R.10, C.P.C.---It is discernible from the said rule, that the transfer of property pendente lite, if proved, will not affect the ultimate decree in the suit and that the transferee is bound by the decree as may ultimately be passed by the court and that if he is impleaded as aparty as an assignee, he can only continue the proceedings with the defense available to the assignor without any independent right to raise new or personal grounds and that the plea of "bona fide" will not be available to the transferee pendente lite and the ultimate decree which the court will pass will be binding upon the transferor and the transferee in the case---Therefore, the Courts below protected the interest of the petitioner while observing that the effect of lis pendense will be considered in the suit by the court---Thus, the petitioner as such cannot possibly be prejudiced by the order nor any cogent reason exists for interference in the impugned order as the impleadment of respondent as a transferee during the suit would only be for the purpose of saving further multiplicity of litigation which will not adversely affect the decision on the objection of the petitioner that the transfer being hit by lis pendense and also being violative of stay order as it will be considered on its own merits after recording evidence by the Court below---No point to interfere in the order of impleadment was made out---Revision was disposed of accordingly.

Sabina Alim vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore S — 2026 MLD 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD