| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 993 1999 SLD 993 1999 CLC 1526 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1796 of 1986, decision dated: 18-06-1999
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J
Ch. Muhammad Asif Ranjha for Petitioner. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu for
Respondent
Civil Revision No. 1796 of 1986, decision dated: 18-06-1999
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J
Ch. Muhammad Asif Ranjha for Petitioner. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu for
Respondent
MUHAMMAD DIN-
VS
SHER MUHAMMAD
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. I, Rr.10, 3 & S.115---Revision petition---Competency---Suit for declaration to the effect that sale mutation which was attested in favour of vendee was illegal, void,' based on fraud and ineffective against right of plaintiff---Suit was decreed by Trial Court which finding was affirmed by the First Appellate Court---Petitioners, who had purchased suit land from the vendee and were in possession of the land in question having not been impleaded as party, filed direct revision before the High Court and contended that they being necessary party and having beets excluded despite the fact that they were in possession of the said property as bona fide purchasers and having protection of S.41, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were, thus, condemned unheard and that s and decrees in question were, thus, of no effect on their rights--Validity---Subsequent vendee who purchased property prior to the institution of a suit became a necessary party---Where, however, a necessary party was not impleaded, revision petition became competent because a suit would not proceed in the absence of necessary party---Principles. The plaintiff in the present case had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale mutation which was attested in favour of vendee was illegal, void, based on fraud and ineffective against his rights and this way the impugned mutation was void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. Subsequent vendees came directly to Court through the revision petition while pointing out that they being necessary party and having been excluded despite the fact that they were in possession of the suit property as bona fide purchasers and having protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were, thus, condemned unheard and that the s and decrees in question were, therefore, of no effect on their rights. It is the duty of a person who is bringing the action, appeal or proceedings to implead all necessary parties to it and his omission to do so calls for remedial action. A necessary party is defined as a party in whose absence no effective decree can be granted in a suit at all whereas a…
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