MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- This Constitution petition has been filed to assail the orders dated 10.11.2006 and 27.01.2007 passed by the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 respectively, whereby application and revision petition for impleadment of the petitioner in a suit filed by Muhammad Sadiq/respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2, were dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for the just decision of this petition are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration qua land measuring 96-Kanals, 15-Marlas situated at Gujjar Revenue Estate, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura through which he claimed that the gift deed registered on 03.01.1990 has been got registered by committing fraud and misrepresentation, having no legal effect. The suit was contested by respondent No. 2/defendant by filing his written statement. The learned Trial Court from the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and provided the opportunity to the parties of the suit to lead their evidence.
3. The claim of the applicant is that he purchased the disputed land from respondent No. 2/defendant for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 29.05.2005 without notice of pendency of any litigation. He filed the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For his impleadment as party in the suit on 10.11.2006, which was duly replied by respondent No. 1/plaintiff as well as the respondent No. 2/defendant. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 27.01.2007, after hearing the parties held that since the petitioner has purchased the land during the pendency of the suit, as such, his case falls within the purview of /is pendense whereas the question for determination in the suit is whether the gift deed No 61, dated 03.01.1990, is fake and ineffective and the present applicant has no concern whatsoever, hence he is neither the necessary nor the proper party and his application was dismissed. The revision petition also faced the same fate, resulting in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and record of the case gone through with their assistance.
5. The only question of law is involved in this case is whether the subsequent vendee can be impleaded as party at any stage of the litigation pending about the same land or not. Following judgments have been referred by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contentions. (2008 SCMR 1024) Muhammad Naeem Butt v. Shaukat A.I and others, (2000 SCMR 45), Mukhtar Baig and others v. Sardar Baig and others, (2004 YLR 466), Khalid Mehmood v. Najeeb Khan and 2 others, (2000 YLR 2888) Messrs Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Siddique & Co.
(REGD.) v. Abdul Hakeem through Legal Heirs and 2 others, (1998 CLC 1576) Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. Mst. Sahib Khatoon and others, (2006 YLR 567) Jamila Bano v. University of Karachi and others, (2003 SCMR 965) Dr. Saleem Javed and others v. Mst. Fauzia Nasim and others, (1992 SCMR 652) Mst. Surraya Begum and others v. Mst. Suban Begum and others, (2003' MLD 231) Muhammad Akrarn and another v. Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa and 6 others, (AIR (39) 1952 PATNA 323 (C.N.57) Basistha Narayan and others v. Sankar Dayal and others.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1984 SCMR 709) Mst., Khaista Jan and others v. Hafiz-ur-Rehman and others, (1984 SCMR 710)
Abdul Qayyum and another v. Mst. Khurshid Jahan and others, (1997 SCMR 171) Rashid Ahmad v.
Mst. Jiwan and 5 others, (1997 SCMR 174) Sajjad Hussain v The State, (PLD 2003 S.C. 818) Fazal Karim through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Afzal through Legal Heirs and others, (PLD 2003 S.C.
828) Our Muhammad and others v. Abdul Sattar, (PLD 2001 S.C. 449) Muhammad Zafar-uz-Zaman and 4 others v. Faqir Muhammad through Legal Heirs, (PLD 2001 S.C. 458) Moazam Shah v. Mohsan Shah and another, (PLD 2002 S.C. 615) Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry v. Akbar Hussain through Legal Heirs and another, (PLD 2002 S.C. 622) Noor Salam and others v. Gul Badshah and others, (2002 SCMR 2003) Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Khan and 2 others, (PLD 2004 S.C. 70)
Ardeshir Cowasjee and others v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others, (PLD 2004 S.C. 77)
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others v. Qamar Hussain Bhatti and others, (1997 SCJ 139) Rashid Ahmad v. Mst. Jiwan, etc., (1997 SCJ 142) Sheikh Muhammad Rafiq, etc. v.
1. United Bank Limited, Saleh Muhammad Street Branch, Karachi,
2. Awami Textile Mills Ltd. Site Kotri, Hyderabad M/s. Salman Cotton Mills (Pvt.). Ltd.
DHA, Karachi, etc. v. United Bank Limited, Saleh Muhammad Street Branch, Karachi, (1992 SCMR 652)
Mst. Surraya Begum and others v. Mst. Suban Begum and others, (1992 SCMR 663) A & B Food Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax/Sales Tax, Karachi, (2007 SCMR 882) Muhammad Shahban and others v. Falak Sher and others, (2007 SCMR 886) Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and others, (PLD 2007 Lahore 440)
Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore v. Messrs GEO T.V., through Chairman and 8 others, (PLD 2007 Lahore 444) Abdul Sattar v. Amir Muhammad Khan and others, (2000 SCMR 1716) The Bakkarmandi Union (REGD)., Lahore v. Metropolitan Corporation/LMC through Mayor and 4 others, (1997 SCMR 380) Kasim Tar Muhammad v. Mst. Sherbano and another, (1987 SCMR 383)
Pakistan through the General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore v. Messrs Q.M.R. Expert Consultants, Lahore, -(2006 SCMR 1067) Zahoor Hussain v. Ch. Niaz A.I and another, (2006 SCMR 1068) Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad (deceased) through L.Rs., (1997 MLD 536) Munir Ahmad v.
Mst. Rukhsana Khan.
7. The judgment reported as Mukhtar Baig and others v. Sardar Baig and others (2000 SCMR 45) is concerned, in this case during the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant (before the Hon'ble Supreme Court) the land was purchased by one Mastay Khan and suit was dismissed. Appeal was also dismissed but in the High Court the case was remanded back to the learned Trial Court with permission to the plaintiff to amend his plaint and in this case at appeal stage (before the learned ADJ), Mastay Khan and vendee was impleaded as respondent No. 2 as the original owner Sardar Khan had died by then and the appeal and revision were contested by the subsequent vendee Mastay Khan. Thereafter, . In the Hon'ble Supreme Court the said subsequent vendee supported the judgment passed in Civil Revision by this Court and there he argued that the matter had been remanded back to the learned Trial Court and he would also get the chance to prove the case of his vendor. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on the basis of the rule of lis pendens, the vendee has to face the consequences.
8. All the above-mentioned judgments taken as a whole establish that in all the cases the vendee has been allowed to be impleaded as party and in all these judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the parties it has been consistently held that all the parties having interest in the subject-matter of the litigation should be allowed to be impleaded in the suit as defendant so as to obviate the multiplicity of the litigation. There is no doubt that rule of lis pendense is applicable in the case of subsequent vendee and he has to face/abide by the outcome of the litigation, if the decree is passed against the original vendor from whom he is a vendee but that does not mean that he should not be provided opportunity to defend his right. The ratio of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner squarely applicable in the case in hand in addition to the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondents are not against the impleadment of the subsequent vendee at all stages. In consequence, the petitioner/applicant being a necessary/proper party is liable to be impleaded as defendant in the suit.
9. It is settled law that discretion is vested in the Court to add parties at any stage of the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ghulam Ahmed Chaudhry's case (PLD 2002 S.C. 615) Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry v. Akbar Hussain through Legal Heirs and another.
10. In view of the exhaustive discussion ibid, this petition is allowed and the judgments of both the learned Courts below dated 10.11.2006 and 27.01.2007 are declared to have been passed in violation of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in various pronouncements mentioned hereinabove. Consequently, the application of the petitioner for his impleadment as defendant in the suit is allowed. No order as to costs. .