CH. ZULFIQAR ALI versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT OKARA
Article 42 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OI, R10 Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Article 52 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petition to apply party pendencias, the plaintiff's husband's view transmitted For the respondent some land from the Sutland Video Exchange process and another respondent from the same land who was one of the deceased seller's legal heirs, sold some property to the applicant under which the applicant sold the property for sale. Was purchased when, without seeking leave of the court under section 52 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882, without the leave of the applicant, In this case ntqly as pendant light could not be implemented as the party that was assigned to the trial court since 1992. There were good reasons for rejecting Jevender, stating that the case had been pending for a long time since 1992 and was settled for final arguments, resulting in a separation proceeding. No absolute rule has been shown that any absolute rule which allows transferring pendant light, without the leave of the court, to join and fight the pending suit authority in any case, or for the sake of property in favor of the court order. Was not received. Under the circumstances of the applicant, the separation, the lease pendency petitioner's view, in the circumstances, the trial court could not have considered it as either a necessary or appropriate party in favor of rejecting the applicant's request. Party in suits
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
