WHETHER SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER IS A NECESSARY OR PROPER PARTY TO A SUIT

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Suit for pre-emption---subsequent purchaser (petitioner) as party to pre-emption suit---Rules---Transfer of property pending suit---Effect---Doctrine of lis pendens---Applicability---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Summary disposal--- Validity--- Respondent/pre-emptor filed suit for pre-emption, which was decreed by trial court---Petitioner had purchased part of suit property during pendency of the suit while injunctive order was in field---Petitioner, being bona fide purchaser for value without notice, filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside judgment and decree, which was dismissed by trial court---Revisional court also declined any interference---Petitioner contended that trial court was bound to frame issues on his application filed under S. 12(2), C.P.C., and that he was necessary party in suit proceedings---Validity---Nothing was evident from record or allegations made in application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., that any fraud or misrepresentation was committed and/or impugned judgment and decree was obtained through concealment of facts---No allegations were levelled in the application to the effect that impugned judgment and decree was collusive and the same was obtained to deprive petitioner of his right in suit property---Was not essential for trial court to frame issues for leading evidence in application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Under S. 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, where property was purchased during course of litigation, with respect to suit property, purchaser would acquire title subject to result of litigation---Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applicable to petitioner's case as he had purchased suit property during course of proceedings in the suit---Petitioner had not given in his application any details as to amount of consideration or effort taken by him to check that no litigation was pending with respect to the property---subsequent vendee /petitioner was not necessary party in the suit for pre-emption---Nothing was available on record to show that impugned order passed by revisional court was without jurisdiction or suffered from legal infirmity---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

 Citation Name  : 2015  YLR  1886   ISLAMABAD

MUHAMMAD ZAHID ASLAM Vs Haji DILBAGH

The same principle is laid down in another case law wherein it was held that the subsequent vendee (purchaser) if purchased the property during pendency of suit will be neither a necessary nor a proper party to the lis. 

2010 CLC 273

however these judgments are showing other view of the courts 

2004 MLD 1395 & PLJ 1990 Rev 95