A. XXXVII, R 2 and O XLIII, R 1 (j) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), section 52 applies for the execution of the principle of lis pendens for linking the execution proceedings and applying for auction to recover the money. In the summary suit for recovery of the order, the recipient of the injunction against the decision-maker applied for the decree and requested annexation and auction of the property belonging to the appellant, who claimed Is the property already decided in the name of the judgment debtor? In his favor, the objection petition was filed and the auctioneer prayed for the cancellation because the verdict of the judgment left no right or interest in the auctioned property. The appellants further claimed that the appellate court was not allowed to auction the property owned by the appellants during the execution hearing. Challenging the revenue entries filed by the appellants, one respondent stated that the property transferred to the other property was transferred by the respondents to the judge's property again. Finally, the suit filed by the appellant was ruled in his favor, the original seller had no rights in the suit property, resulting in the original seller, including the decision lender, stepping into the shoes of the original vendor. Who had no rights. In the case of transfer of property which was made by the appellants during the trial filed without any permission and permission, the case was subject to the principle of pendente under section 52 of the Transferred Property Act, 1882 The execution court justified auction proceedings
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
