Home Maxims & Terms Subsequent sale of suit land meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Subsequent sale of suit land

Subsequent sale of suit land legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2020 YLR 461 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 52Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Suit for specific performance of contractAppealSubsequent sale of suit landImpleadment of a partyLis pendens, principle ofApplicability

Suit was dismissed against which an appeal was filed wherein an application was moved for impleadment as a party on the ground that petitioner had purchased the suit property

Appellate Court accepted the said application and case was remanded for de novo trial

Validity

Rule of lis pendens was based upon the principle that it would be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination if the alienation pendente lite was permitted to prevail and subsequent transferee was allowed to set out his own independent case even of being the bona fide transferee against the succeeding party of the matter and asked for the commencement of de novo proceedings so as to defeat the claim which had been settled by a final judicial verdict

Petitioner was not necessary party to the appeal or suit and appeal could have been decided without impleading him

Impugned judgment was set aside and application for impleadment as a party was dismissed

Matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision of appeal afresh in accordance with law

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Subsequent sale of suit land", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124961978

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Subsequent sale of suit land"

YLRN 2017
W.P. No.14906 of 2012, decided on 15th October, 2015.

2017 Y L R Note 51

MEHMOOD ANWER and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 14 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLC 2003
High Court Appeal No.3 of 1974, decided on 19th November, 2001.

2003 C L C 250

RAZA HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
YLR 2020
Civil Revision No. 204044 of 2018, decided on 14th October, 2019.

2020 Y L R 461

PERVAIZ AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus SULTAN TIPU SARWAR and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 2019
N/A

P L D 2019 Lahore 148

MAMDAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH — Respondent

Court: High Court
MLD 2012
N/A

2012 M L D 832

HAMIDA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and 4 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
MLD 2011
2010-November-22

2011 MLD 974

Mst. BANORI — Petitioner Versus JAILANI — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
CLC 1989
Civil Revision No.370‑D of 1980, decided on 12th December, 1988.

1989 C L C 1230

Court: Lahore
PLD 1985
Civil Revision No. 160 of 1985, decided on 24th March, 1985.

P L D 1985 Lahore 610

LAL KHAN-Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS-Respondent

Court:
PLD 1988
Civil Revisions Nos.368 and 369 of 1985, decided on 25thFebruary, 1987.

P L D 1988 Peshawar 76

NAZAR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus FIDA MUHAMMAD Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑Ss.5 & 12‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.135‑‑Pre‑emption, right of‑‑Payment of price of land by vendee in presence of pre‑emptor‑‑Effect‑‑Waiver, when could not be permitted to be urged‑‑Contention of vendee‑petitioner, that admission of pre‑emptor that payment was made in his presence amounted to waiver, repelled‑ Petitioner, while so contending, failed to take note of the portion of statement of pre‑emptor in which he ‑had stated that he had taken sc many Jirgas to vendees not to purchase the land but they were adamant to purchase and did purchase it‑‑In presence of such categorical statement and in absence of rebuttal or other proof on record, ground of waiver urged by petitioners had no substance‑‑Plea of waiver, was neither specifically taken up in pleadings nor urged at time of arguments before Courts below‑‑Such plea, held, could not be permitted to.be urged at revisional stage‑‑Waiver.
MLD 1986
Regular Second Appeal No.224 of 1983, decided on 2nd August. 1986.

1986 M L D 2856

NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Appellant Versus NOOR SHAH and others‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore