AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. Through this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned trial court whereby an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC moved by respondents No.1 to 3 for impleading them as defendants in the suit was accepted and the order/judgment dated 25.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Respondents No.1 to 3 are already proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.04.2017. Respondents No.4 and 5 have been served, even P.C. was issued for today but no one is present on their behalf. Therefore, respondents No.4 and 5 are proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas respondents No.6 and 7 are formal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and also gone through the record minutely .
4. A suit for declaration was filed by the petitioners/plaintif fs on 06.11.2000 in which the injunctive order was granted on 18.05.2001. The suit was ultimately decreed on 08.12.2009. An appeal was preferred by respondents No.4 and 5, which was dismissed on 22.01.201 1. A Civil Revision No.1188 of 2011 was filed, which was allowed by this Court and matter was remand ed to the learned Senior Civil Judge. During this period the applicants/respondents No.1 to 3 moved an application under section 12 (2) of the CPC on 08.01.2010. The reply was filed. They also prayed for grant of interim injunction during the pendency of application, which was refused on 08.04.201 1. An appeal there against was also dismissed on 09.03.2012. They filed a revision petition before this Court against that order bearing No.956 of 2012, which was withdrawn on 02.02.2016. They moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC in the suit in the post remand proceedings admittedly claiming purchase of suit property during "ut lite pendente nihil innovetur". The reply was filed but the learned trial court accepted the application vide order dated 17.01.2017. A revision there against was filed, which was dismissed by the learned revisional court vide order dated 25.02.2017. Hence, this writ petition.
5. While referring the judgments reported as "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BUTT and others versus MUHAMMAD ASIF BHATTI and others" (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 905), "FARZAND Ali and another versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others" (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 187), "AASIA JABEEN and 3 others versus LIAQAT Ali and others"
(2016 SCMR 1773), "Mst. TABASSUM SHAHEEN versus Mst. UZMA RAHAT and others" (2012 SCMR 983), "DILNAWAZ BEGUM and others versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN AFRIDI and others" (2017 CLC 1115) and "PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Collector, Sheikhupura and others versus SYED GHAZANFAR Ali SHAH and others" (2017 SCMR 172) leaned counsel for the petitioners argues that the party purchasing the suit property during pendent lite has absolutely no right to move for impleadment and further while relying upon "GHULAM RASOOL versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER and others" (1980 SCMR 921) states that the applicants cannot be joined in the post remand proceedings, therefore stated that application was absolutely not maintainable and the learned trial court was having no jurisdiction to allow the application and order of dismissal of revision passed by the learned revisional court is also without jurisdiction.
Therefore, prays for acceptance of instant writ petition.
6. I have gone through the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. During the pendency of suit a purchaser has no right to move for impleadment. Light can be taken from the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BUTT and others versus MUHAMMAD ASIF BHATTI and others"
(PLD 201 1 Supreme Court 905). For ready reference the relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- "It has been held "the doctrine of "lis pendens" is that one who purchases from a party pending suit a part or the whole of the subject-matter involved in the litigation takes it subject to the final disposition of the cause and is bound by the decision that may be entered against the party from whom he derived title."
Further on the point that in post remand proceedings the applicants cannot be joined. Light can be taken from the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "GHULAM RASOOL versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER and others" (1980 SCMR 921). In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 17.01.2017 allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC moved by respondents No.1 to 3 and impleading them as defendants in the suit and the order of learned revisional court dated 25.02.2017 dismissing the revision petition are without jurisdiction and declared as such. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.