Section 13 Transfer of Property Act (I82 of I82), Section 52 Search, later the sale effect of a portion of the suit property through a sales effect lis pendens, dismissed the principle of employment suit prior to application by trial. But the Court of Appeal obtained the remand of the case. Defendant Defendant purchased 23 Kanal 16 Marla land through a sale mutation on 21 6 2006, with the aforesaid court ordering to take the modified plant from the pre-emptor while implementing the transfer. And then sent a notice to 5. The case was settled by filing a case on 7 2006 and earlier on 6 9 2006. Defendant moved a portion of the 10 Kanal 8 Marla piece of land later on sale on March 24, 2006, after Wendy was banned from selling or reselling the land in the post-institutional dispute. The provision of section 52 of the Impression Suite Transfer of Property Act, 1882 will be applicable only if the lease is pending. In the present case the property was made before the case was filed, so the principle of las pendens was not applied before the emperor neither disclosed nor sought the petition in connection with the sale and the plaintiff was silent in that regard. A portion of the land covered by the defendant in favor of the transfer was an independent transaction and subsequently the case for enforcement of the transfer was required to be vacated according to the appellate court law as the party in the case committed it. What was Illegal review was accepted and the unreasonable decision approved by the appellate court was set aside and the merit decision
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
