BASHIR AHMAD And Others vs GHULAM ALI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order dismissing an application by the petitioners to be impleaded as parties in a pending Regular Second Appeal (RSA 84 of 1975). The petitioners, who had purchased a portion of the disputed property during the pendency of the litigation, sought to join the proceedings, arguing that their claim was supported by official mutation attestations. They expressed apprehension that their vendors might not pursue the appeal diligently or might collude with the opposing party, thereby prejudicing the petitioners' interests. The lower court had previously denied the application, invoking the doctrine of lis pendens. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the petitioners warranted further consideration. The Court granted leave to appeal, emphasizing that for the effective administration of justice, it is generally conducive to allow parties with a genuine interest in the subject property to be heard and to defend their rights, notwithstanding the potential application of the doctrine of lis pendens at the conclusion of the litigation.
- Can a purchaser of property during pending litigation be impleaded as a party to the proceedings?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens automatically bar a purchaser from being impleaded in a pending appeal?
- Is it conducive to the administration of justice to allow parties with an interest in the subject property to be heard even if they purchased the property pendente lite?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-The petitioners sought to be impleaded as a party on the ground that they had purchased a portion of the property in dispute pending adjudication in RSA 84 of 1975. The application was dismissed on the ground that the doctrine of lis pendens would apply to their case vide order dated 28-10-1989.
2. The petitioners seek leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no doubt doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable on the conclusion of the litigation but there was no justification not to allow the petitioners to be impleaded as a party in the litigation as their claim was based on official attestation of mutation in their favour, especially when apprehension was expressed that the petitioners' vendors may not earnestly pursue the appeal or collude in which event the rights of the petitioners would be prejudiced. It was conducive for administration of justice that all parties having interest in the property should be before the Court and heard to defend their rights.
4. Contentions raised require consideration.
5. Security in the sum of Rs.5,000. Appeal be processed on the present record with permission to the parties to file any document. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- Miss AFIFA vs MRs, NUSRAT HAFEEZ and others 2016 YLR 1193
- Syed IRFAN ALI and another vs Syed REHMAT ALI and 4 others 2010 MLD 365
- Syed KHURRAM SHAH vs Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF and 4 others 2009 PLD Lahore 140