Lis Pendens

A subsequent purchaser cannot claim any independent right or interest as compared to his transferor (vendor) but at the same time he is not precluded to claim his impleadment as party in the pending proceedings because if his transferor opts to keep himself aloof from the proceedings after parting with his rights and interests in the property latter if not allowed to be impleaded would be deprived of his right to defend his cause and it would naturally offend the principle of natural justice.

Alienation of suit property after dismissal of suit for non-prosecution and before its restoration falls within the sphere of lis pendens

Factual background of present case was that appellants / plaintiffs (pre-emptors) filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against respondent No. 5 (vendor) regarding the suit land claiming the sale price was Rs.200,000, while respondent No.5 asserted that it was Rs.250,000

Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and was later on restored

After dismissal of suit and before its restoration, respondent No.5 (vendor) sold the property to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (subsequent vendees)

During pendency of the suit, respondent No. 5 (vendor) made a statement before the trial court that the original vendor could be summoned to confirm the actual sale consideration and that whatever amount the vendor admitted to have received could be treated as the sale price for decreeing the suit

The only question before the Trial Court requiring determination was the price of the suit land and respondent No.5 had no objection if the original vendor was summoned for ascertaining the actual amount of sale, but the Trial Court did not accede to the request of the appellant and proceeded to frame the issues

Trial Court dismissed the said request but the revisional court accepted it, decreeing the suit

Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (subsequent vendees) challenged the revisional court verdict before the High Court, whereby, the decree was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits, prompting the present appeal by the preemptor concerning the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens

Primary question warranting determination before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the pre-emption suit despite a stay order, were bound by the statement of their predecessor-in-interest under the rule of lis pendens, and whether the appellant (pre-emptor), who had already deposited the amount of Rs.250,000/- in compliance with that statement, could claim that the transaction was struck by lis pendens and was entitled to have the suit decreed?"

Held: So far as the argument that the property was purchased during the period when the suit was dismissed, therefore, the principle of lis pendens did not apply to the case of the subsequent buyers, the said argument had no force, because if a suit was dismissed and then restored, the restoration order related to back period and a transfer/sale after dismissal and before restoration was subjected to the principle of lis pendens embodied in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

However, in the present case, the petitioners purchased the disputed property through a mutation when the proceedings in the suit were in progress after its restoration after dismissal for non-prosecution

Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had acquired the title to the suit property subject to the final outcome of the lis and as such were bound by the result of the suit stricto sensu in all respects, as their transferor i.e. respondent No.5 was bound

High Court erred in law while passing the impugned order, which suffered from material illegality, therefore, same could not be allowed to sustain further

Resultantly, the impugned order was set aside and appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Whoever acquired property during the pendency of action was held bound by the judgment that might be made against the person from whom he derived his title even though such a purchaser was not a party to the action and had no notice of the pending litigation

Such rule, however, was subject to certain conditions: firstly, the suit must be relating to a specific immovable property in which any rights of the parties were directly and specifically in question; secondly, the suit should be pending at the time when the alienation in favour of the third person had been made; and thirdly, neither the suit itself nor the outcome thereof be collusive, fraudulent and/or was meant to entrap, deceive, and defraud an innocent transferee.

Whoever acquires property during the pendency of action is held bound by the judgment that may be made against the person from whom he derived his title even though such a purchaser was not party to the action as had no notice of the pending litigation.

Principle of lis pendens is a universally recognized and accepted rule of justice; it is a principle of law, equity, good conscience and public policy

contention that principle of lis pendens is merely doctrine of common law, does not seen to be wholly correct.

Basic object underlying the principle is to maintain status quo and preserve the corpus of the lis during the continuance of litigation and till the final decision of the dispute so as to be ultimately made over to the adjudged right-holder irrespective of the fact whether injunctive order was passed by the Court or Tribunal seized with the lis

Principle of lis pendens must take precedence especially where there was colourful, dubious and mala fide exercise of jurisdiction in passing an order by an authority bestowed upon under the law that jurisdiction in blatant disregard of its power under the law and in violation of all the canons of justice and fair play or even of the principles of natural justice.

Mutation of suit land sanctioned during pendency of appeal in suit being hit by the principle of lis pendens would not take effect so far as property in question was concerned.

Documents prepared during the pendency of the proceedings would be hit by the principle of lis pendens and would not take effect.

Application.

Civil servants after their conviction were proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 and removed from service-Such civil servants were subsequently pardoned by the Zonal Martial Law Administrator and directed to be reinstated in service

Order of reinstatement in service not implemented

Effect

Civil servants were not removed from service by and under their order of conviction by Summary Military Court, rather they were proceeded against and dismissed under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 in consequence thereof

Order of reinstatement by Martial Law Administrator was thus clearly beyond his jurisdiction under S.143 of Pakistan Army Act, 1952-Unless legal intention in the form of Martial Law Regulation or Martial Law Order was clearly expressed, or the instruction was a consequence of some legal document, no advantage could be taken of a simple instruction issued by C.M.LA.'s Secretariat for the reinstatement of civil servant.

Doctrine of lis pendens has no application to service matters.

S. 52-Lis pendens, doctrine of-Land temporary allotted to R confirmed in favour of S without notice to R-R on getting knowledge of transfer to S filing revision and on its dismissal writ petitions during pendency of writ petition selling land to P-R's writ allowed, case remanded and ultimately land restored to R-Writ by P on ground of his not being bound by order of restoration of land to R for trot teeing impleaded as a party Held, P having purchased land during pendency of writ by R hit by doctrine of is pendens and bound by ultimate outcome of decision-P being ultimate beneficiary of an ab initio void order for want of notice to R did not stand on same footing as R who being temporary allottee of land had right t notice to R did not stand on the same footing as R who being temporary allottee of land had a right to show-cause notice before cancellation his allotment.

S. 52 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. 1, r. 3-Lis pendens-Parties to suit-Notice-Interest created during pendency of suit or appeal Cannot affect decree subsequently passed-H selling out land in suit to during pendency of appeal but not disclosing fact either during hearing of appeal or that of revision

Nor S applying to be impleaded as party on basis of sale-Adverse order passed in revision against S-Contention in writ petition that revisional order having been passed without notice to S, order not maintainable-Held, S stepped into shoes of H by purchasing land and bound by order passed against H and impleading of S not necessary in circumstances.

Right in property having already vested in vendee, sale-deed, held, not affected by doctrine of lis pendens.

S. 52-Lis pendens-Partition suit-Suit contemplated in S. 52-Doctrine of lis pendens-Applicable to partition suit-Tenancy created during pendency of partition suit-Person inducted into property by one co-sharer without concurrence of others-Premises occupied by such person not falling to share of co-sharer inducting him into premises- Co-sharer allottee of portion comprising such premises, held, cannot be saddled with encumbrances created during litigation and entitled to get possession of premises free of all encumbrances.

S. 52-Lis pendens Doctrine applies to suit for specific performance-Suit for specific performance between first vendee and vendor compromised in appeal and vendor conceding vendee's claim to specific performance-Review of Judgment applied for by subsequent vendee (who alleged decision had been taken in his absence) entertained-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XL VII, r. 1.

Absence of privity of contract between plaintiff and transfer or Plaintiff has no cause of action against transferee.