ABDUL SATTAR vs Mst. AZRA KHANAM And 5 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a review application by the High Court, which had refused to restore a Regular Second Appeal that was previously withdrawn by the plaintiff. The core legal question concerns whether a third-party purchaser pendente lite can compel the court to restore and prosecute a second appeal that the original appellant chose to withdraw. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to restoration of the appeal simply because he purchased the property during the pendency of the litigation and the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the appeal. The Court dismissed the leave petition, affirming that the petitioner may seek any other independent remedy available to him under the law as observed by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a pendente lite purchaser cannot force the continuation of an abandoned appeal by the original vendor.
- Can a pendente lite purchaser compel the court to restore a regular second appeal withdrawn by the original appellant?
- Does the withdrawal of an appeal by a plaintiff deprive a purchaser pendente lite of independent remedies available under the law?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Petitioner's Review Application against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal as withdrawn was dismissed by the High Court with the observation that he may seek other remedy available to him under the law. He has now sought leave to appeal.
2. According to learned counsel the suit of respondent No.6 for declaration regarding the suit property was dismissed. He failed in appeal before the District Court and then filed a Regular Second Appeal in the High Court. During the pendency of the litigation the petitioner claims to have purchased the property from the plaintiff, who withdrew his appeal before the High Court thereby, as stated by the learned counsel, depriving the petitioner of his remedy. He accordingly argued that the High Court should have restored the R.S.A. And should have allowed the same as that of the petitioner.
3. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek any other remedy if available in accordance with the observations of the High Court.
4. This petition, accordingly, is dismissed.