2013 PLP 551 (SCMR)
BAGH ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. AYESHA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 551 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | BAGH ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. AYESHA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 551 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 551 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 551 (SCMR) (BAGH ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. AYESHA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Habib ur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6-6-2012 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalnagar Bench in Civil Revision No.75-D/2004/BWP).
S. 12
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Scope
Suit relating to disputed property filed before its alleged purchase
Suit for specific performance qua disputed property filed by plaintiff/respondent was decreed by Trial Court, whereafter it was affirmed by the Appellate Court and defendant's appeal was dismissed
Contention of defendant was that he was bona fide purchaser without notice and suit for specific performance could not have been decreed
Defendant had not denied that suit for specific performance about disputed property was filed in the year 1992, whereas the defendant had allegedly purchased the said property in the year 1993
Defendant's case was hit by the principle of lis pendens
Judgments and decrees passed by courts below were unexceptionable
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances and leave was refused. Muhammad Ashraf Butt v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti PLD 2007 SC 905 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Seeks leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees i.e. the judgment and decree dated 1-10-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Minchinabad whereby respondents' suit for specific performance was decreed and that of learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar dated 14-1-2004 vide which the afore-referred judgment and decree was affirmed and petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser without notice and the suit for specific performance could not have been decreed; that both the courts have not adverted to this point and that the judgments and decrees are not sustainable.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied on court query that the suit for specific performance qua the suit property was filed in the year 1992 whereas petitioner has purchased the said property in the year 1993. Having considered the evidence led, we are of the view that petitioner's case is hit by the principle of lis pendence and the law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Ashraf Butt v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti (PLD 2007 SC 905) would squarely apply to uphold the judgments and decrees. The same therefore, are unexceptionable. Finding no merit in this petition, it is dismissed and leave refused. MWA/B-1/SC Petition dismissed.