S M ATTIQUE SHAH, J. Through the instant revision petition, petitioner has questioned the legality of the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2022, rendered by learned Additional District Judge-V, Peshawar, whereby the appeal of petitioner No. 8 was dismissed, while maintaining the order of the learned Civil Judge-XVI, Peshawar dated 23.10.2021.
2. Heard.
3. Record reflects that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through partition in respect of the suit property hearing khasras Nos. 4944, 4945, and 4948, along with an application for grant of temporary injunction, which was initially declined by the learned trial Court, however, the same was granted by the learned Appeal Court, while accepting the appeal of the respondent No I. During the pendency of suit, petitioner No. 8 submitted an application for issuance of direction to the Sub-Registrar-II, respondent No. 7 for the registration and attestation of the sale deed regarding the transfer of the property measuring 13 marlas situated in khasra No. 4945, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2021. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned appeal Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2022.
4. It is the case of petitioner No. 8 that he has purchased 13 Marla land situated in Khasra No. 4945 from petitioner No. 1, but, despite that respondent No. 7 refused to register the sale deed on account of the pendency of suit. The precise question for determination in the instant petition is whether, during the pendency of a suit and status quo order, a Court can issue a directionto the concerned authorities qua transfer of the disputed property in favour of a third person.
Transfer of disputed properties during the pendency of a suit is governed under the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced below; "Section 52 Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto---During the pendency in any Court having authority in Pakistan or established beyond the limits of Pakistan by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose."
5. The ibid provision of law in legal parlance is known as principle of "lis pendens" which literally means a pending suit or cause. The doctrine of "lis pendens" has been defined as jurisdiction, power, or control which a Court acquires over property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action and; until final judgment therein. The very object and purpose of the ibid provision is to protect the parties to the litigation against alienation by them during the pendency of litigation.
If the vendor is allowed to alienate the disputed property during the pendency of the suit, then, indeed, there would be no end to the pending litigation, and; Certainly, justice would be defeated, which is neither permissible nor, desirable under the law. The ibid provision of law is based upon the well-known maxim of equity "pendent elite nihil innovetur" which means that during the pendency of a litigation nothing new should be introduced, which adversely affects the rights of the litigating parties. The petitioner No.1 is a contesting party before the learned trial Court in the pending suit filed by the respondent No. 1 and if he is allowed to alienate the property in question in favour of the petitioner No. 8, then, definitely it would adversely affect the interest and; cause of the respondent No 1. The principle laid down by the august Apex Court in the case titled Farzand Ali v.
Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 2015 SC 187) is that the subsequent transferee cannot sustain his title which is acquired by him during the pendency of a suit, as he is bound by the outcome of the suit which is decided, either way, irrespective of the fact that whether he is a party to the suit or otherwise. The tenet as embodied in provision of Section 52 is that during the pendency of a suit in any Court or proceeding, which is not collusive, and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein.
6.Now moving to the facts of instant case, a suit for possession through partition was filed on 26.03.2019 by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners along with an application for an interim injunction, initially, the learned trial Court turned down the said application vide order dated 06.05.2019, albeit, the same was allowed by the learned Appeal Court through judgment dated 25.10.2019 on acceptance of the appeal of respondent No. 1, which order still holds the field being extended by the learned trial Court from time to time. Meanwhile, petitioner No. 8 filed an application before the learned trial Court qua a direction to the respondent No. 7 (Registrar) for registration of sale deed in his favour, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court and; the learned Appeal Court also maintained the said order by dismissing the appeal of the petitioners.
Record further reflects that petitioner No. 8 allegedly purchased 13 Marlas out of khasra No. 4945 (disputed property) from petitioner No. 1 on 05.08.2021 during the pendency of the suit and; the status quo order, which is indeed hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, the impugned findings rendered by the Courts below are not suffering from any illegality or irregularity; rather, the same are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record of the case, hence, do not require any interference by this Court in its Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., which is otherwise very narrow and Limited in its scope. Hence, the instant revision petition is dismissed; being meritless.