MUHAMMAD NAEEM BUTT vs SHAUKAT ALI and others

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition calls in question order, dated 25th May, 2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with the observation that petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the appeal bearing No,498 of 2000 pending on the file of Additional District Judge, Lahore.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of instant petition for leave to appeal are that petitioner submitted an application under Order 1, rule, 10, C.P.C. Seeking his impleadment as party in the appeal referred to hereinabove on the ground that he has purchased the part of property vide sale-deed dated 11th October, 2002 from Ameer Ali Dar. The application was resisted by the respondent and Additional District Judge, vide order, dated 7th March, 1990 declined to accept the application, as a result whereof he was not made as party. As such a revision petition was filed and the learned High Court on having taken into consideration essential facts particularly that the petitioner knowing well that a decree of specific performance has been passed in favour of late Amjad Ali and against respondent No,1 Shaukat Ali, has purchased the property at his own risk therefore, in such circumstances, the principle of lis pendense will be applicable. It may be noted that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is brother-in-law of Ameer Ali Dar who in fact in violation of the order passed by the High Court on 12th June, 1991 in F.A.O. No,110 of 1991 has purchased the property, therefore, keeping in view these facts, learned High Court was of the opinion that the petitioner is not a necessary party. To substantiate the conclusion, the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Messrs Aman Enterprises, Sialkot v. Messrs Rahim Industries Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 292 has been pressed into service. It would be appropriate to reproduce relevant para. Therefrom hereinbelow:-- "It was stated on behalf of respondent No,2 that it was not award of the agreement of 16-10-1978 between respondent No,1 and the appellant when it purchased the factory building; subsequently, it made huge investment on the plots in question and raised a factory which at its present value was worth more than Rs,2 crore; thus, it was not a fit case where specific performance of the agreement should be allowed. This contention is without any merit. The rule of lis pendense is fully applicable in this case as respondent No,2 purchased the factory building during the pendency of the suit. If it had made any inquiries from the office of the Corporation it would have come to know, if it had not learnt otherwise earlier, that an agreement for the sale of the factory building existed between the appellant and respondent No,1. There is hardly any equity in its favour."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in a latter judgment in the case of Ardeshir Cowasjee and others v. Karachi Building Control Authority PLD 2004 SC 70, such application submitted by a purchaser was allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the B parties. We have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel but its facts are different from the facts of the case in hand and the judgment of case of Messrs Aman Enterprises

(ibid) is applicable with its all force on the facts of this case.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in instant petition as such same is dismissed and leave declined.