2002 PLP 47 (CLC)

Javed Iqbal Sheikh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2000. A suit for specific performance filed by respondent No. 1, was pending when an application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. was filed by the petitioners to be impleaded as party in the suit on the ground that they were purchaser of the land from respondent/defendant Muhammad Mumtaz vie mutation No.305, dated 8‑5‑1996. The application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 op the ground that the said transaction was hit by the principle of lis pendens. On 22‑10‑1997, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the same was not supported by any document which could indicate that they were necessary party. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision petition before the learned District Judge, Sargodha, which was initially entertained but was returned on 21‑5‑1998 for presentation before the proper Court on account of pecuniary limit of the District Court. Hence this revision, which is accompanied by an application under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the transaction in favour of the petitioners was admitted in the reply filed by the respondent No.1 before the trial Court, the said Court, thus acted erroneously in dismissing the application which is an illegal order. It is further contended that the learned trial Court by the same order, ordered the impleadment of Ghulam Hussain as a defendant to the suit who had claimed himself a purchaser vide mutation No.302, dated 13‑3‑1996. It is contended that the order of the learned trial Court is self‑contradictory in the matter.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 (who is the plaintiff in the suit) and is the contesting respondent, contends that Mutation No.305, dated 8‑5‑1996 was hit by the principle of lis pendens, therefore, the application of the petitioners has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.

4. The perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court in this case, however, shows that the application of the petitioners was rejected simply for the reason that the same was not supported by any proof of sale in their favour so as to implead them as party to the suit. The learned trial' Court, however, omitted to advert, to the reply filed by plaintiff/ respondent No.1; wherein the transaction, dated 8‑5‑1996 was not denied and the principle of lis pendens was invoked against the same. The reason which weighed with the learned trial Court in rejecting the application thus is not sustainable, particularly when Ghulam Hussain, another vendee, pending litigation, has been ordered to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. For the present, as the petitioners acquired some interest in the suit land, they were‑entitled to be impleaded as party and heard by the learned trial Court. The effect of the transaction pending litigation and the rule of lis pendens will undoubtedly be examined by the trial Court in due course of time.

5. The revision petition filed before the learned District Judge was within limitation and was entertained without objection. It was only on 21‑5‑1998 when the same was returned to the petitioners by the learned Additional District Judge for presentation to the proper Court, which was thereafter filed in this Court. Thus, the delay in filing of this petition before this Court is condoned. For the above reasons, the petition is accepted, order of the learned trial Court, dated 22‑10‑1997, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for being impleaded as party to the suit was dismissed, is set aside. Their application is accepted. It may be observed that the learned trial Court will ensure that the matter is not unnecessarily prolonged and is decided expeditiously. No order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑110/L Petition accepted.