' This F.A.O. Arises out of an objection petition filed under Order XXI, rule 58 of C.P.C. Before the Executing Court which was dismissed by order dated 12-4-2003.
2. Precisely, respondent No,2 obtained a decree against respondent No,3 for a sum of Rs.7,56,000 from the learned Judge, Banking Court, Lahore on 15-5-1999. In execution of the decree, land bearing Khasra No,558/2 situated at Mauza Dera Basti Ram, Lahore was attached. On 22-52003, the learned Executing Court passed an order for the sale of the land through Court Auctioneer.
3. The appellant claiming to be bona fide purchaser of a portion of land subject matter of the attachment, filed an objection petition under Order XXI, rule 58 of the C.P.C. Before the learned Executing Court which was dismissed on 12-4-2003. It is, this order, being assailed in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and is protected under the provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents-Bank, in opposition, controverted the contentions and argued that the property in dispute was mortgaged with the Bank in the year 1982; the suit was filed in 1986 while the appellant purchased the property on 7-3-1995," when the suit was pending adjudication before the competent Court of Law.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The equitable mortgage was created by deposit of title deed with the Bank. Admittedly, the property was purchased by the appellant on 7-3-1995, when the suit was pending adjudication in a competent Court of Law. Sale in his favour is hit by doctrine of lis pendens as contained in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. As to the plea of bona fide purchaser, the appellant has not been able to make out a case to seek protection. The contention is devoid of any force and A merits rejection.
The appellant had to be vigilant and was obliged to take full care and caution to ascertain the transferor's power. There is no indication on the record that the appellant required his transferor to produce the original title deed for his inspection. Even otherwise, the transfer made in favour of the appellant during the pendency of the suit is hit by principle of lis pendens. The appellant is not entitled to the protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Resultantly, this F.A.O. Is without merit and is dismissed.