' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Sahib Dad, the petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against order, dated 3- 7-2001, whereby the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed his application filed under section 12(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. (Civil Miscellaneous No,410/C of 2001 in Civil Revision No,1130-D of 1989).
2. Abdul Ghafoor (respondent No,2) was allotted State land measuring 65 Kanals, 10 Marlas in Chak No,96/NB, Tehsil and District Sargodha, he, statedly, fulfilled all the conditions of allotment and proprietary rights qua the land were, reportedly, conferred on him. He apprehending resumption of the State land by the Provincial Government, on 19-7-1984, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Provincial Government from resumption of land. During pendency of the said suit, Abdul Ghafoor, agreed to sell the questioned land, vide agreement to sell dated 10-8-1986 for a consideration of Rs,4,50,000, to the petitioner; said Abdul Ghafoor did not abide by the terms of the agreement to sell and thereupon the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against Abdul Ghafoor, which was decreed by the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 21-3-1995 and two appeals (R.F.A. No,133 of 1995 and R.F.A. No,33 of 1996), filed by both the parties, were dismissed by the learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, vide judgment and decree dated 10- 11-1998. Aforementioned suit filed by Abdul Ghafoor against Provincial Government was decreed in his favour by the trial Court on 23-11-1987 and appeal filed by the Provincial Government was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 11-7-1988, however, the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore accepted the revision petition (Civil Revision No,1130 of 1989), filed by the Provincial Government, vide judgment dated 6-12-2000 and the suit was dismissed on the ground that Abdul Ghafoor had already been allotted land in another Chak which he was retaining, therefore, he could not be given land in dispute and the Provincial Government was justified in law to resume this land. The petitioner, on 16-6-2001, filed an application under section 12(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. (Civil Miscellaneous No,410/C of 2001) for setting aside judgment, dated, 6-12- 2000, passed by the learned revisional Court favouring respondent No,1, but without any success as the learned Lahore High Court dismissed the said application, vide impugned order, dated 3-7- 2001, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being a transferee pendente lite was a necessary party in the revision petition and although the Provincial Government was aware that the petitioner's name was recorded as owner in the Revenue Record yet it did not file any application before the revisional Court for impleading the petitioner in the revision petition. He further submitted that petitioner's application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Under the circumstances was competent and it was wrongly dismissed. He has relied upon the cases reported as Surraya Begum v. Suban Begum 1992 SCM R 652, Rashid Ahmed v. Jiwan 1997 SCM R 170 and Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Khan 2002 SCM R 2003. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has submitted that the decree passed against an assignor is binding on the assignee; that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was not maintainable and that in view of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the petitioner was neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings. He has referred to Shamsher Ali v. Sher Ali PLD 1976 Lah.
650.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Law officer and examined the available record. Abdul Ghafoor filed the suit against the Provincial Government on 19-7-1984, it was decreed on 23-11-1987, the first appeal was dismissed on 11-7-1988 and the revision petition was allowed on 6-12-2000, while the basis of the claim of the petitioner i,e, agreement to sell is dated 10-8-1986. Thus, the petitioner agreed to purchase the disputed land, vide agreement to sell dated 10-8-1986 when suit titled Abdul Ghafoor v. Province of Punjab and others was pending. It flows there from that the proceedings qua the petitioner, which took off from the date of agreement to sell dated 10-8-1986 and ended with the attestation of mutation i,e, on 9-5-1995, were undertaken during pendency of the suit, appeal and revision arising out of the suit titled "Abdul Ghafoor v. Province of Punjab and others", thus, undoubtedly the petitioner was a transferee pendent lite. Additionally, it has been admitted in the present petition and acknowledged by learned counsel that the status of the petitioner is that of transferee pendent lite. According to the petitioner, Abdul Ghafoor during the pendency of the suit assigned his rights in the disputed land in his favour. In the said scenario the case of the petitioner was adequately covered under the provisions of Order XXII, rule 10(1), C.P.C., but he did not choose to file any such application and felt satisfied on defending the proceedings by Abdul Ghafoor. Learned counsel has although relied upon the judgment of Surraya Begum (ibid), yet the in-depth perusal amply shows that it does not help the petitioner. It has been held in the said case that assignee may file an application to either become a party under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Or for his substitution in place of the assignor and if the assignee chooses not to file any application for his impalement in the proceedings then the decision against the assignor would be binding upon him. It appears appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment, which reads as under:--- "The assignee need not bring himself on record, if he feels that his interest is being protected by his assignor, in which case the decision for or against his assignor would be binding upon him. See Luxmi Narayan's case (supra) and Nawabzada Shamsher Ali Khan v. Maj. Gen. Nawabzada Sher Ali Khan PLD 1976 Lah.
650. The suit in such a case would be treated as continuing for the benefit of the assignee, who can, after the decree is passed, file execution proceedings, see Uchhab Pratta v. Brundaban Malik AIR 1969 Orissa 142 and Jugalkishara Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. AIR 1955 SC 376. It is only when the assignee feels that his interest is in jeopardy and not likely to be protected by the assignor, that he can apply to become either a party under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. See Ameer Muhammad v. Jiwanlal AIR 1952 MB 154, or to be substituted for his assignor under Order XXII, rule 10, C.P.C. In the former case, the decree for or against the assignor would be binding on the assignee, and the assignee would be deemed fully represented through the decree-holder. See Banke Behari Lal v. Ranghubar Dayal AIR 1930 All. 380 and in the latter case the decree would be treated as one for or against the assignee, as transferee of the assignor. In both cases, the decree covers, the first directly and the second impliedly."
' Admittedly, the petitioner opted not to become a party in the proceedings and he did not file any application for his impleadment or substitution. In the said eventuality any order, judgment or decree passed against the assignor is binding on the assignee as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Surrya Begum (ibid).
5. There is yet another aspect of the case. The petitioner did not challenge order, dated 6-12-2000, whereby revision petition filed by Provincial Government against Abdul Ghafoor was allowed. It is true that the petitioner was not a party to the said revision petition, but it is equally true that he, under the law, could have challenged the said order. It has been held in the case of H.M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Limited PLD 1969 SC 65 that a stranger to a suit or a proceeding can file an appeal if he adversely affected by an order in that suit or proceeding.
6. Now coming to the judgments referred to by the learned counsel. As regards the case of Rashid Ahmed (ibid), suffice it to say that in the said case the question involved was as to whether the transferee pendente lite in view of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is debarred from being made party to the pending proceedings. In the case in hand the said question is not in issue, as the petitioner did not file any application either under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Or Order XXII, rule 10, C.P.C. As regards the case of Muhammad Nawaz Khan (ibid), it primarily deals with the rights of a bona fide purchaser for value during the pendency of proceedings. We asked the learned counsel to show, with the reference to his application under section 12(2), C.P.C., as to whether the petitioner ever pleaded that he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration. He after examining the said application categorically admitted before us that no such plea was raised. In view whereof, the said judgments are also of no avail to the petitioner.
7. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned order and find that it does not suffer from any legal infirmity and it was passed not only in accordance with the record of the case but also in consonance with the law on the subject. We are not persuaded to reverse the said order.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.