Through this civil revision the petitioner, who claims to be bona fide purchaser of plot measuring 8-marlas through registered sale deed No.3323 registered on 06.05.2010 (Ex.D-2), has challenged the judgment & decree dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat whereby the suit filed by the original plaintiff Muhammad Ramzan was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel states that the petitioner purchased 8-marlas land through the above mentioned registered sale deed when the litigation was pending. States that on the basis of an oral agreement to sell of the year 1971 for a plot measuring 9-marlas a suit was filed by the legal heirs of Muhammad Ramzan on 21.11.1994 against the legal heirs of Khadim Hussain Shah. The plaintiffs claiming agreement to sell in favour of their predecessor by the predecessor of defendants for the land measuring 01-kanal 12-marlas. The suit was ex-parte decreed vide judgment & decree dated 29.03.2002. The judgment debtors on 03.11.2012 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 12 (2) as well as Section 151 of the CPC, which was allowed by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 21.11.2014 and the suit was restored. The plaintiffs/decree holders filed a revision petition, which was dismissed on 26.01.2017. The petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC on the ground that he purchased part of the suit property. The application was allowed vide order dated 06.05.2015. He was made party as defendant in the suit. The suit was dismissed finally vide judgment & decree dated 09.04.2018. Two appeals, one by the judgment debtors and the other by the petitioner being bona fide purchaser, were filed and the same were dismissed through consolidated judgment and decrees dated 05.03.2019. Hence, this revision by the petitioner. Learned counsel states that he is a bona fide purchaser and issue No.4-A was framed but the findings are against the evidence available on the file and the law.
3. I have heard the preliminary arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also gone through the record.
4. The stance of the petitioner that he is bona fide purchaser and nothing was pending at the time of purchase of the suit house, which was the ownership of vendor/decree holder on the basis of ex parte decree passed by the learned trial court. Admittedly the said judgment & decree were set-aside on moving an application by the judgment debtors under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 12 (2) as well as Section 151 of the CPC. The said order was challenged in a revision, which was maintained and the suit was restored. The seller to the petitioner is bound to compensate him when on the basis of an oral agreement to sell the suit was filed in the year 1994 without pleading the specifications of agreement which are necessary, in my view, an oral agreement is to be pleaded in the suit with full detail i.e. specific date, time and place of agreement arrived at between the parties and the witnesses of agreement as well as earnest money paid under the agreement and also plead the full terms of agreement because in an oral agreement to sell there is no document in support of version of the plaintiff. All the necessary pleading is missing in the instant suit.
5. Even if nothing was pending at the time of purchase of the part of suit property by the petitioner through a registered sale deed, subsequent filing of application under order IX Rule 13 read with Section 12 (2) as well as Section 151 of the CPC was in continuat ion of the proceedings of the suit. Theref ore, the petitioner will be bound by the judgment and orders passed upon the said application. He cannot say that nothing was pending at the time of his purchase, therefore, the subsequen t orders are not binding upon him. He purchased part of the suit property on the basis of ex-parte decree and on the basis of said ex-parte decree the seller transferred the part of suit property . I am of the view that in such like cases it is the seller who has to compensate the vendee/petitioner . I have noticed that in 100% cases the person who is the defendant of a suit has defrauded, they contest the matter with the plaintif f of suit, rather filing their claim against the defendant who has defrauded them. In the instant case seller was knowingly that he has ex-parte decree in his favour , sold the property to the petitioner and subsequently the said ex-parte decree was set-aside. They even challenged the setting aside order in a revision which too was dismissed by the learned revisional court vide order dated 26.01.2017 and subsequently the suit was revived and ultimately same was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 09.04.2018 and the appeal there against too was dismissed on 05.03.2019. The plaintif fs have also filed Civil Revision No.30453 of 2019 against the consolidated judgment passed by the learned first appellate court, which too was fixed for preliminary hearing for today and the same has been dismissed in limine today . In this view of the matter , learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any defect in the judgments & decrees passed by the learned courts below . Therefore, the instant civil revision having no forces stands dismissed in limine.