Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1781

ASGHAR ALI alias SAJID and 4 others vs FAZAL KARIM and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1781
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,670 of 1984
Date1988-11-27
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by objectors against the dismissal of their civil revision concerning the execution of a decree for possession. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners, as purchasers pendente lite, could successfully object to the execution of the decree and whether their alternative grounds in the objection petition were legally competent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners' claim as purchasers pendente lite was rightly rejected under the principle of lis pendens, and further held that the objection petition on the remaining grounds was not competent. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the principle that purchasers pendente lite are bound by ongoing litigation and that objections on untenable grounds are incompetent.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can purchasers pendente lite successfully object to the execution of a decree for possession?
  • Is an objection petition challenging a decree on other grounds competent when raised by purchasers pendente lite?
  • Does the principle of lis pendens apply to purchasers of property during the pendency of litigation?
leave to appealexecution of decreepurchasers pendente litelis pendensobjection petitioncivil revision

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the objectors to the execution of a decree for possession, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision.

2. The petitioners' claim on the facts that they were purchasers pendent elite, has rightly been rejected on account of the principle of lis pendens.

3. The learned counsel, however, contended that the petitioners have also challenged the decree on other grounds which have not been attended to in the impugned judgment.

4. After some arguments, the learned counsel remained unable to advance his contention, when told that on the so-called other grounds, the objection petition was not competent.

' Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.