Mst. KHAISTA JAN AND OTHERS vs HAFIZURREHMAN AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a revisional order of the Peshawar High Court dated 1-11-1983, which restored the trial court's order substituting the respondents as plaintiffs in a pending suit. The core legal question is whether purchasers of suit property during the pendency of a suit can be impleaded as plaintiffs under Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, notwithstanding a rival pre-emption suit filed by tenants based on the same sale. The Supreme Court held that the order of the trial court allowing the substitution of the purchasers as plaintiffs was just, fair, and in accordance with the principles governing the impleading of necessary parties, thereby upholding the High Court's decision. The key principle laid down is that pendente lite purchasers may be permitted to be joined as parties to protect their acquired interest when the original plaintiffs' and defendants' competing claims involve issues affecting the underlying title and tenancy rights.
- Can a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of a suit be impleaded as a plaintiff under Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether pendente lite purchasers are entitled to be joined as necessary parties when their purchased interest is subject to the outcome of the ongoing litigation?
- Does a rival pre-emption suit filed by tenants bar the impleading of a purchaser who acquired the property during the pendency of the original suit?
- Order XXII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from a revisional order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 1-11-1983 ; whereby while setting aside an appellate order, the order passed by a learned Civil Judge substituting the respondents as plaintiffs in a suit was restored.
2. The brief facts strictly relevant to the present petition stated at the Bar are that Fakhr-uz-Zaman and others plaintiffs filed a suit against Malik Amin and others. Subsequently the respondents filed an application that they having purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit from the A plaintiffs, should be impleaded as plaintiffs. This application was allowed, under Order XXII, rule 10, C. P. Cr The present petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge which was allowed.
3. The petitioner's plea was that they having filed a pre-emption suit on the ground of being tenants had in the meanwhile succeeded in respect of the same sale which was relied upon by the respondents, no cause of action was left with the latter so as to be impleaded as plaintiffs. The respondents then filed a revision petition in the High Court. Their plea as explained by their learned counsel is that the original suit filed by Fakhr-uz-Zaman and others was on the basis that the petitioners as tenants could not have denied the title of the land owners, therefore, on such denial they forfeited the right to continue as tenants accordingly Fakhr-uz-Zaman and others were entitled to the declaration and possession sought in the original suit. After the suit is ultimately decreed it is further submitted from the respondents side, the so-called tenants would lose the rights of tenancy which was the basis of their alleged right of pre-emption, and that respondents would have a cause of action to protect their purchase made during the pendency of the suit.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned trial Court is not only just and fair but is also in accord with the dictates of the principles regarding impleading necessary parties. The judgment of the High Court in this behalf is unexceptionable. We do not find any justification for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
- JAMIA MASJID HANFIA ATTOCK Versus Mst. SURRAYA BIBI 2026 CLC 109
- Mst. NASEEM FATIMA vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 4 others 2015 PLJ Islamabad 135, 2015 YLR 1348
- Tahir Saeed vs Muhammad Sadiq etc. 2012 C.L.R. 1090
- MUHAMMAD SHAHBAN and others Versus FALAK SHER 2007 SCMR 882
- MST. NASEEM FATIMA vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS 2015 NLR Civil 572
- Mst. NASEEM FATIMA vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its 2015 PLJ Islamabad 135
- Jamia Masjid Hanfia Attock Through President Rashid Rehman vs Mst. 2025 LHC 4343