Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 2041 2020 SLD 2041 2020 CLC 1835
Lahore High Court
E.F.A. No. 777 of 2002, heard on 18-02-2020
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE ASIM HAFEEZ, JUSTICE
Barrister Muhammad Ahmad Pansota and Zafar Iqbal Mangan for Petitioner. Nadeem Mehmood Mian, Safdar Hussain Tarrar, Rana Intezar and Malik Shahbaz Ahmed for
Respondent No.14.

MST. ALAM BIBI THROUGH L.RS.

VS

KASB BANK THROUGH MANAGER AND OTHERS

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 52

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2)

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 52---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12 (2)---Auction of suit property had been set aside---Subsequent transferee from the auction purchaser---Scope---Lis pendens, principle of---Applicability---Withdrawal of appeal---Effect---Principle of acquiescence---Applicability---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. purchased suit land from the auction purchaser during pendency of appeal---Sale auction of suit property was set aside in appeal---Contention of applicant was that he had not been afforded an opportunity to defend his rights---Validity---Transaction of sale inter se applicant and auction purchaser had been completed during pendency of appeal---Principle of lis pendens was applicable in the matter---No independent right in the suit property could be claimed or conferred on subsequent transferee independent or conclusive from alleged rights of auction purchaser when auction had been set aside---Interest of auction purchaser and subsequent transferee was common, inseparable and applicant was not entitled to raise or maintain an action independent of auction purchaser could not seek determination or re-determination of alleged rights in the property through application under S.12(2) of C.P.C. when rights of unsuccessful auction purchaser accruing out of auction sale had been held ineffective and unenforceable---Auction purchaser had withdrawn appeal filed against impugned whereby auction sale had been set aside---Withdrawal of pending appeal did constitute acquiescence, acknowledgment and acceptance of impugned ---Finality extended to the impugned order upon withdrawal of appeal could not be disturbed merely upon application of subsequent transferee under S.12(2) of C.P.C.---Application under S.12(2) of C.P.C. was not a substitute for the remedy of appeal could not quarantine itself from the effect and legal implications of S.52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and consequences of withdrawal of appeal lacked entitlement and locus standi to maintain present application and to contest order of setting aside of auction sale in independent capacity---Application being not maintainable was dismissed, in circumstances.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492