Purchased the suit land during pendency of the appeal before the Appellate court, hence the principle of lis-pendens is attracted

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 while referring to para-6 of judgment of this Court passed in RSA 791/1976 contends that this question of fact has already been dealt with by this Court, hence there was no occasion for the executing Court or first Appellate Court to re-determine the same in presence of findings recorded by this Court while deciding the above said appeal. It is also added that this Court while deciding the appeal also observed that the matter is reportedly pending in a separate suit filed by Mst. Shaukat Ara challenging the transaction cancelled from the name of Muhammad Sarwar, therefore, adjudication of the same point raised by the petitioner in objection petition was out of question to be determined by the learned executing Court and learned lower Appellate Court, hence both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned orders. Further submits that the petitioner had purchased the suit land during pendency of the appeal before the Appellate court, hence the principle of lis-pendens is attracted. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ashraf Butt and others v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti and others (PLD 2011 SC 905) and Mst. Tabassum Shaheen v. Mst. Uzma Rahat and others (2012 SCMR 983). 

Part of Judgment 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

Civil Revision
3674-11

2017 LHC 4782