' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 15-5-002 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that the land measuring 32 kanals 5 marlas, described in the plaint, was owned by Muhammad Alam respondent No,2 and his brother Ali Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 6. Both the brothers had effected a private partition and were enjoying separate possession. Respondent No,2 filed a partition application which was heard and allowed by the Revenue Officer on 13-10-1996. The Wandas were approved. Against this order, the respondent No,2 filed an appeal. The grievance was that a passage be provided to approach his separate share. This appeal was allowed on 3-4-2001 and a passage of Two Karms inKhasra No,15 and 16 (Eastrn) was given and an equal area was given from the Wanda of the respondent No,2 in Khasra No,6 to the opposite party. It was explained that the appeal was filed on 31-10-1996 whereas Ali Muhammad had gifted away his land to his sons i,e, respondents Nos. 3 to 6 on 23-8-1996.
However, they were not impleaded as parties. Besides Ali Muhammad himself died during the pendency of the appeal and his sons had sold the land to the petitioner on 23-1-2001 and 15-3- 2001 but he was not impleaded while the appeal was allowed on 3-4-2001. He filed a review application whereupon sanction was sought by the D.O. (R) vide order, dated 15-11-2001 which was refused by the EDO(R) on 9-4-2002. This order was sought to be declared illegal and void and that the respondent No,2 is not entitled to any passage or its use. Along with this suit, an application was filed for grant of temporary injunction suspending the operation of the said appellate order.
The suit and the application were primarily contested by Muhammad Alam, the deceased respondent No,2. According to him, all the said transactions took place during the pendency of he partition proceedings and were not to have any effect. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 9-2-2005. A learned ADJ, T.T. Singh, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner on 12-4-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said appellate order is void as the petitioner has been condemned unheard and its operation ought to have been suspended. Learned A.A.-G argues that in view of the circumstances apparent on the face of the plaint, the EDO(R) had correctly refused to sanction the review. Mr. Riasat Ali, Advocate/learned counsel for respondent No,2 contends that, admittedly, the said transactions had taken place during the pendency of the partition proceedings and were not reported to the Revenue Officers and as such the order shall take effect and the, rights acquired by the respondent No,2 on the basis of the said pleadings will not at all be affected by the said transactions.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already narrated above the contents of the pleadings of the contesting parties particularly that of the plaint. Admittedly, Muhammad Alam and his brother Ali Muhammad were the two co-sharers of his land. Muhammad Alam filed the partition suit against the brother Ali Muhammad. The suit was decided and Wandas were approved on 13-10-1996. A first appeal was available and Muhammad Alam filed the same on 31- 10-1996. This appeal remained pending when Ali Muhammad died and his LRs i,e, respondents Nos.
3 to 6 were impleaded. The appeal was ultimately decided on 3-4-2001.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, in the first instance, Ali Muhammad gifted away the land to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 on23-8-1996. This is a point of time when the partition application was pending before the Revenue Officer, Thereafter, the respondents Nos. 3 and 5 i,e, sons of said Ali Muhammad sold their share of the land to the petitioner on 23-1-2001 and 15-3-2001 respectively.
This is a point of time after the filing of the appeal and before its decision on 3-4-2001. To my mind both the said transactions are to have no effect on the result of the lis. The rule of lis pendens embodied in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, being a rule of equity is certainly applicable to the lis that was pending and decided by the Revenue Officer and the Collector. The EDO(R) has, therefore, acted within his domain while refusing the sanction to review. The impugned orders, therefore, do not at all attract the mischief of section 115 C.P.C. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.