' On 28-1-1998 the respondent No,,l filed a suit against respondents Nos.2 to 5 for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit land mentioned in the plaint. It was stated that the respondents Nos.2 to 5 agreed to sell the land to the respondent No,1 for a consideration of Rs,7,30,000 which was paid by means of a cheque dated 29-8-1990 which was got encashed and possession was delivered. The suit was contested by the said respondents by filing separate written statements. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The matter was being adjourned for arguments when on 31-5-2003 the petitioners filed application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. For being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that they had obtained the land in exchange from the defendants in the, case. The application was resisted by the respondent No,1 who stated that the petitioners being transferees pendente lite are not necessary or proper parties. The application was dismissed on 25-6-2003. Thereafter, arguments were heard and the suit filed by respondent No,1 was also dismissed on 23-7-2003. Against this judgment and decree, the respondent No,1 filed a first appeal. During the pendency of the first appeal, a written compromise was filed in which it was acknowledged that the said amount was paid to the respondents Nos.2 to 5 by the respondent No,1 through a cheque which amount has been received and the suit be decreed. It was further agreed that any Government dues or mortgage money shall be paid by the said respondents Nos.1 to 5. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit was decreed by a learned ADJ, Mailsi, on 17-8-2004. The petitioners filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside of the said judgment and decree dated 17-8-2004 asserting that it is result of fraud. The application was contested. The application was dismissed by a learned A.D.J., Mailsi, on 27-9-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the case of Muhammad Yaqub and another v. Mahboob Ali Qureshi 1998 PLC (C.S) 11 contends that after transferring the land by way of exchange, the respondents Nos.2 to 5 were left with no authority to enter into a compromise with the respondent No,
1. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that, admittedly, the petitioners had acquired the land during the pendency of the suit and as such were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Besides there is no fraud as in the instant case the payment has been made by means of a cheque as far back as in the year 1990 whereas the petitioners proceeded to acquire the land when the proceedings in the suit were complete and arguments were about to be heard. They rely upon the case of Mukhtar Baig and others v. Sardar Baig and others 2000 SCMR 45.
3. I have examined the judgment being cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It will be seen that in the said case pre-emption decree was passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Court of first appeal. During the pendency of the R.S.A., the successful preemptor proceeded to sell the land to a third party and thereafter to make a statement in Court, that let the R.S.A. be allowed and the decree set aside. It was in the said peculiar circumstances that the said case was decided. In the present case, there is no collusion forthcoming on the face of the record.
The suit was curtailed and was dismissed and it was in the course of a first appeal that the compromise was recorded. There is nothing illegal with the said compromise. Needless to state that the mere fact that the parties had entered into a compromise would not constitute the evidence of collusion. Reference be made to the case of Hakim Ghulam Rasool v. Sh. Imdad Hussain and another PLD 1968 SC 501. I may here refer to the case of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Chief Manager v. Saadi Asmatullah and others 1999 SCMR 2874 wherein their Lordships observed that even a bona fide purchaser with consideration pendente lite would be bound by the result of the litigation as his rights in such property would be subject to the rights of the parties to the litigation as finally determined by the Court. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. d