MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J.--- Through this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of judgment dated 11.11.201 1 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by maintaining the order dated 24.07.2010 passe d by the learned Civil Judge by which objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed; hence this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections filed by the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 19.03.1981 and 12.10.1986 qua same land purchased from princ ipal owners namely Muhammad Sarwar and National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation, have not been taken into consideration in execution of decree dated 13.09.1971 passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed upto Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing Civil Petition No.1603-L of 2001 on 29.06.2004 holding that objections were not sustainable because the petitioner had purchased the suit land after passing of decree, hence the transaction executed in favour of present petitioner was hit by the principle of lis pendens whereas the principle of lis pendens in the facts and circumstanced' involved in the case was not attracted, hence the impugned decisions are not sustainable in the eye law. lie has placed reliance on Mst. Suraya Begum v. Commercial Bank Ltd. and 4 others (PLD 1990 Lahore 4); Riaz Hussain and others v. Muhammad Akbar and others (2003 SCMR 181) and Muhammad Hussain & Co. Rice Dealers through Muhammad Hussain and 8 others v. Habib Bank Limited through Attorneys and 2 others 2005 CLD 1400 (Lahore).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 while referring to para-6 of judgment of this Court passed in RSA 791/1976 contends that this question of fact has already been dealt with by this Court, hence there was no occasion for the executing Court or first Appellate Court to re-determine the same in presence of findings recorded by this Court while deciding the above said appeal. It is also added that this Court while deciding the appeal also observed that the matter is reportedly pending in a separate suit filed by Mst. Shaukat Ara challenging the transaction cancelled from the name of Muhammad Sarwar , therefore, adjudication of the same point raised by the petitioner in objection petition was out of question to be determined by the learn ed executing Court and learned lower Appellate Court, hence both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned orders. Further submits that the petitioner had purchased the suit land during pendency of the appeal before the Appellate court, hence the principle of lis-pendens is attracted. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ashraf Butt and others v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti and others (PLD 2011 SC 905) and Mst. Tabassum Shaheen v. Mst.
Uzma Rahat and others ( 2012 SCMR 983 ).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record as well as the case-law cited at bar .
5. There is no cavil to the proposition that executing Court has jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of fact, if raised in objection petition during pendency of execution petition, under Section 47 C.P.0 even by framing issues and recording evidence of the parties. But here in this case the petitioner claims his ownership on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour by Muhammad Sarwar on 19.03.1981 and 12.10.1986 whereas decree for specific performance was firstly passed by the learned trial Court in the year 1974 and this litigation is pending since 1965 and it is also admitted by the learned counsel while arguing R.S.A. No.791/1976 that land had already cancelled from the name of the vendor of objectors against which suit is already pending adjudication reflecting from the judgment of this Court recorded in Para No.6 of R.S.A. No.791/1976. It is expedient to reproduce the same herein below:- "It was next contended that the land in Mouza Bhikeywal was acquired by the Lahore Development Authority and in lieu thereof a plot of land was allotted to the appellant which had already sold out. As regards the land of Mouza Charar he submitted that a Patwari namely Sarwar , through forgery and fraud, had got the land in Mouza Charar allotted in his name and a criminal case was got registered against him by the appellant. He was convicted and sentenced and the land was restored in favour of the appellant. Meanwhile, it was shown to have been sold by Sarwar to Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society and the suit filed by the appellant was statedly pending.
Based on the aforesaid facts, it was contended that the contract stood frustrated and that the respondent not having taken any steps with regard to the land in dispute, it was a fit case for exercise of discretion against the respondent under Section 22 of the Specific Relief .Act.
Admitted position is that Muhammad Sarwar's ownership has already been cancelled and the present petitioner who claimed to be purchaser of land from Muhammad Sarwar being stepped into the shoes of his vendor also lost his claim of ownership, therefore, in execution of decree which was affirmed up to Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing the petitioner in the wake of an objection that he was not made party amounts to frustrate the decree. It is obvious from record that he had purchased the suit land after passing of decree in favour of respondents and needless to mention as reflects from judgment passed in R.S.A. No.791/1976 that his vendor's ownership was cancelled because it was alleged to have been obtained by committing fraud and misrepresentation. It is also admitted position that after cancellation same was recorded in the name of original allottee against which the suit for specific performance was decreed. Although against cancellation a separate suit is also pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction, hence the learned executing Court has rightly let off its hand for the simple reason that land in dispute at the time of execution of sale deed was not belonged to Muhammad Sarwar from whom the petitioner derived the title had already lost his ownership/entitlement for which reportedly an independent suit is pending whereafter petitioner would be in better position to prove the validity of its entitlement for which he should either , if so advised, join the proceedings of that suit or to go for setting aside the decree being executed; hence it is held that the learned Courts below had not committed any material illegality and irregularity while holding that 'there is no protection provided in the Transfer of Property Act with regard to rights of the vendees who purchased any piece of land involved in litigation. Mandate of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 prohibits to purchase land involved in litigation whereas the property in dispute was purchased by the petitioner after passing of decree in favour of the respondents/decree holders, hence the judgments impugned are in consonance with law thus warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power .
6. In view of above, this petition having no merit stands dismissed. No order as to cost.