Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XX, R. 18---Suit for partition of property and separate possession of share---Preliminary decree---Mandatory declaration of shares---Supreme Court held that in a suit for partition, Court must adhere to procedure under Order XX, Rule 18, C.P.C. while issuing preliminary decree---Preliminary decree is meant to ascertain and declare shares of parties and to give further necessary directions for subsequent proceedings---It does not itself effect physical division of property among co-sharers; actual partition is carried out at final decree stage after inquiry in accordance with directions contained in preliminary decree---In present case, preliminary decree issued by Trial Court suffered from material irregularity because shares of parties were not specified or clarified---Such procedural shortcoming was overlooked by First Appellate Court and High Court, undermining validity of preliminary decree. (b) Partition---- ----Partial partition---Not maintainable---Co-owner’s right in every inch of joint holding---Supreme Court held that suit for partial partition is not maintainable---A co-owner cannot selectively choose and claim share in more valuable portions of joint property while excluding portions of lesser value---Every co-owner has ownership rights over every inch of joint holding corresponding to his share---Entire property corpus must be aggregated into a common pool under supervision of Court so that each co-owner receives allotted share fairly, keeping in view relative value, area, location and nature of properties---Allowing partition of only one selected property from joint estate would cause discrimination and inequity among co-sharers. Cited Cases: • Chandi Shah v. Barbara Shaha and others AIR 1930 Lahore 286 • Jan Muhammad and another v. Abdur Rashid and 5 others 1993 SCMR 1463 (c) Partition---- ----Joint family estate consisting of multiple properties---Family settlement alleged---Duty of Court to verify entire property corpus---Dispute related to estate left by deceased father of parties, allegedly comprising four houses---Petitioner consistently maintained that late father owned four distinct properties divided equally among three sons through family partition/family settlement, while respondent sought partition only of disputed house in petitioner’s possession---Supreme Court held that Trial Court failed to verify family settlement, description of each property, prior partition, status of disputed house, and improvements made to disputed house---Earlier High Court judgment in first round of litigation had specifically observed that these matters were to be determined when partition proceedings were initiated---Failure to examine such essential matters rendered preliminary decree fundamentally untenable. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XX, R. 18---Partition proceedings---Preliminary decree and final decree---Distinct stages---Supreme Court explained that partition suit proceeds in phases---At preliminary decree stage, Court determines and declares rights/shares of parties and may issue necessary directions---At final decree stage, actual division is carried out after inquiry in accordance with preliminary decree---Where partition or separation cannot conveniently be carried out without further inquiry, Court must first pass proper preliminary decree declaring rights of all interested parties---Trial Court erred by allowing partition to proceed only in respect of disputed property without first determining overall estate, shares and status of other properties. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Material irregularity in preliminary decree---High Court’s failure to correct error---Trial Court issued preliminary decree in favour of respondent No.1 and First Appellate Court maintained same---High Court dismissed revision, holding that respondent No.1 had right to select any property from estate for partition---Supreme Court held that such reasoning contravened settled principles governing partition and partial partition---Preliminary decree was marred by misinterpretation, oversight of evidence and misapplication of legal principles---High Court ought to have reversed decree and remanded matter for comprehensive reassessment of all issues. (f) Earlier litigation---- ----Findings in previous round of litigation---Effect in subsequent partition suit---In earlier suit for injunction, High Court had noticed uncertainty regarding whether petitioner intended to raise construction on ancestral land or purchased land and had held that description of houses, prior partition of ancestral property, status of additional land and improvements would be determined once partition proceedings were initiated---Supreme Court held that in subsequent partition suit, Trial Court and High Court failed to take those observations into account and proceeded only on disputed house---Such omission resulted in incomplete and legally defective adjudication. Disposition: Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; judgments and decrees of Courts below were set aside; matter was remanded to Trial Court to decide suit afresh in accordance with law, after taking into account observations of Supreme Court regarding declaration of shares, entire property corpus, family settlement, status of other properties and non-maintainability of partial partition; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Art. 115---Estoppel of tenant---Tenant denying title of landlord---Scope---Respondents instituted suit for recovery of produce and ejectment against petitioners, which was decreed by Trial Court and such decree was maintained by appellate, revisional and constitutional forums---Supreme Court held that where a person enters into possession as tenant, he is estopped from disputing title of landlord so long as he continues to retain possession under tenancy---Doctrine embodied in Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is founded on public policy and prevents tenant from approbating and reprobating simultaneously---Tenant who subsequently asserts ownership rights cannot retain possession as tenant and, at same time, deny landlord’s title. Cited Case: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 (b) Landlord and tenant---- ----Tenant asserting ownership/proprietary rights---Duty to first surrender possession---Tenant disputing proprietary title of landlord must first vacate and surrender possession and thereafter may contest his alleged title before competent forum---Law does not permit tenant to continue possession under tenancy while simultaneously setting up hostile title against landlord---If tenant ultimately succeeds in establishing his proprietary rights, he may enforce decree according to law with all its consequences. Cited Case: • Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad deceased through L.Rs. 2006 SCMR 1068 (c) Landlord and tenant---- ----Agreement to sell or alleged purchase by tenant---Effect on tenancy---Mere assertion of ownership on basis of agreement to sell or alleged acquisition of proprietary rights does not defeat maintainability of ejectment proceedings---Until tenant establishes his claim before competent Court, landlord continues to enjoy status of owner/landlord and relationship between parties remains regulated by tenancy---Tenant cannot legitimately resist ejectment proceedings merely on ground of alleged sale agreement or ownership claim. Cited Cases: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 • Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540 • Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others 2004 SCMR 1568 (d) Ejectment proceedings---- ----Maintainability---Tenant claiming purchase of share/co-ownership---Effect---Ejectment proceedings remain maintainable even where tenant asserts that he has acquired ownership rights by purchase of a share in the property---Such assertion does not automatically terminate tenancy nor oust jurisdiction of forum deciding ejectment---Tenant’s plea of ownership cannot be made basis to resist ejectment where his possession qua demised premises remains that of tenant. Cited Cases: • Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913 • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 (e) Rent Controller / ejectment forum---- ----Limited jurisdiction---Complicated question of title---Proper remedy---Forum exercising limited jurisdiction in ejectment proceedings cannot adjudicate upon complicated questions of ownership title between parties---Where tenant claims to have purchased a share or acquired co-ownership, proper remedy is to seek partition through competent civil forum and not to resist ejectment proceedings by raising disputed title questions before ejectment forum. (f) Landlord and tenant---- ----Tenant claiming co-ownership by purchase of share---Proper recourse---Tenant claiming co-ownership cannot use such plea as shield against ejectment while retaining possession under tenancy---His remedy is to file suit for partition or appropriate proceedings before competent civil forum---Ejectment cannot be refused merely because tenant claims purchase of a share, where his position in respect of disputed premises remains that of tenant. Cited Case: • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 (g) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Concurrent findings---Interference by Supreme Court---Suit for recovery of produce and ejectment was decreed by Trial Court; appeal, revision, second revision and constitutional petition were dismissed---High Court correctly construed law relating to estoppel of tenant, surrender of possession, maintainability of ejectment proceedings and remedy of partition---No illegality or jurisdictional defect warranting interference by Supreme Court was shown---Petition was devoid of merit. Disposition: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.806-P of 2018 was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused; Supreme Court held that tenant asserting ownership/co-ownership must first surrender possession before contesting title, ejectment proceedings remain maintainable, and remedy for alleged co-ownership lies through partition before competent civil forum. CMA No.1877-P of 2018 became infructuous and was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in C.R. No. 1374 of 2010). Partition Act (IV of 1893)--- ----S. 4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11 & O.VII, R.11--- Suit for partition---Res judicata, principle of---Applicability---Rejecting of plaint---Suit filed by petitioners/plaintiffs was rejected by Trial Court on the ground that earlier suit for declaration regarding same property was not decided---Validity---Right of partition is an independent right and cannot be connected with any previous suit even with regard to the same property and cannot be declared as barred by O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by three Courts below and matter was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh on merits---A ppeal was allowed. Muhammad Shoaib Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (through video link Peshawar). Muhammad Javaid Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (through video link Peshawar) Date of hearing: 21st November, 2024.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11 & O. II, R. 2 Res judicata—Scope and applicability in suits for partition The petitioner’s suit for possession through partition of their joint property was initially dismissed under Rule 11 of Order VII, CPC, on the ground that it was barred by the principle of res judicata, as an earlier declaratory suit regarding the same property between the same parties had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply because the earlier suit was for a declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and was not decided on merits. A right to partition is an independent legal right and cannot be barred based on a prior declaratory suit. The Court also dismissed the argument that the suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2, CPC, as the petitioner was not required to seek partition in the earlier litigation. Cited Laws: Section 42, Specific Relief Act, 1877 O. VII, R. 11, and O. II, R. 2, CPC (b) Partition of property—Independent legal right The Supreme Court clarified that the right to partition is an independent substantive right distinct from other claims regarding the same property. This right cannot be extinguished by invoking the principle of res judicata unless explicitly adjudicated in a prior suit. (c) Dismissal of plaint—Improper application of Order VII, Rule 11, CPC The Court noted that the dismissal of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, was unwarranted in the circumstances, as the issue of partition was not addressed on merits in the earlier declaratory suit. It directed the trial court to reinstate the suit and proceed from the stage where it was dismissed. Disposition: The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgments of the three lower courts were set aside. The matter was remanded to the trial court for proceedings on merits.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a civil petition challenging the order of the Islamabad High Court regarding the inheritance of the estate of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan, who passed away in 2010. The estate included a house in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, along with his siblings, had agreed to evaluate the property and distribute shares according to Islamic law. However, after agreeing to a “Consent/Joint Statement,” the petitioner later contested it, claiming he did not understand what he had signed, despite being present with his counsel. He also filed a suit for partition and other claims in December 2021, 11 years after his father's death, which was triggered by his sisters' request for their inheritance. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s claim that he did not understand the “Consent/Joint Statement” is justified. ----2- Whether the filing of the suit for partition and related claims affects the inheritance rights of the petitioner’s sisters and other legal heirs. ----3- Whether the petitioner’s actions in contesting the agreement and delaying the distribution of the estate justify the imposition of costs. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found the petitioner’s claim that he did not understand the “Consent/Joint Statement” unjustified. The petitioner, who was an educated individual and was present with his counsel at the time of signing, could not reasonably claim that he was unaware of the contents of the document. The court reiterated that the property of a deceased Muslim vests in the legal heirs immediately upon death, and the pendency of a suit for partition does not bar the rightful distribution of the estate. The petitioner’s actions were seen as an attempt to deprive his sisters of their rightful inheritance, which the court strongly disapproved of. The court emphasized the need to protect the inheritance rights of vulnerable members of society, including female heirs. The petition was dismissed as frivolous, and the court imposed a cost of 300,000 rupees on the petitioner, to be distributed equally among the respondents (the sisters). The court also noted that the respondents were justified in claiming mesne profits for the time they were deprived of their rightful shares.

Summary: Background: The petitioners challenged the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue (BOR), Punjab, which dismissed their Review Petition No. 401/2023. The review petition was related to the partition of joint agricultural land measuring 213 Kanals 17 Marlas and 169 Kanals situated in Mouza Burj Khurd, Kasur. The partition proceedings had been adjourned sine die due to a pending civil suit. Respondent No. 5, Muhammad Imtiaz, challenged the adjournment and sought to resume the partition proceedings, which was allowed by the revenue authorities and upheld by the Board of Revenue. -----Issues: 1- Whether the partition proceedings should be adjourned sine die due to the pendency of a civil suit. ----2- Whether the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to decide the partition of the joint property. ----3- Whether the dismissal of the petitioners' review petition by the Board of Revenue was legally valid. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the writ petition, reasoning that: --Jurisdiction of Revenue Officer: Under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Revenue Officer has the authority to deal with partition matters. Section 135-A of the Act mandates that partition proceedings should commence immediately after the inheritance mutation is sanctioned, regardless of any application from the co-owners. The court emphasized that the Revenue Officer is competent to address partition issues, even if a civil suit is pending, as the title of the land was not disputed. --No Legal Bar Due to Civil Suit: The court ruled that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar the revenue authorities from proceeding with partition. Section 141 of the Act grants the Revenue Officer the power to inquire into and decide any title questions raised during partition proceedings, without requiring intervention from a civil court. --Review Petition Dismissal: The court found no legal irregularity in the dismissal of the review petition by the Member, Board of Revenue, as the review remedy has a limited scope. The petitioners failed to present sufficient grounds for the review, and the delay in challenging earlier orders further weakened their case. The court noted that the petitioners were attempting to delay the partition process on unwarranted grounds and referred to a recent Supreme Court ruling (Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah v. Hassan Bokhari and others (2024 SCMR 154)) that discouraged such practices. -----Citations/Precedents: Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah v. Hassan Bokhari and others (2024 SCMR 154) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Sections 135-A and 141) Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the Revenue Officer was directed to expedite the partition proceedings in accordance with the law.

Summary: (a) Partition Act (IV of 1893)--- ----S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 & O.IX, R. 13--- Suit for partition of dwelling house---Ex-parte decree, maintaining of---Suit was filed by respondent / plaintiff seeking partition of dwelling housing to the extent of her share---Suit was decreed ex-parte and application filed by petitioners / defendants was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Ex-parte decree could not be treated as void---Respondent / plaintiff in ex-parte decree was relying on registered deed in favour of predecessor-in-interest from whom she had been claiming accrual of right by inheritance---In written statement petitioners / defendants had relied on purchase of rights in immovable property through unregistered deed and the unregistered deed could not be proved as the petitioners / defendants did not produce any evidence in support thereof before Trial Court---Respondent / plaintiff through ex-parte evidence of had sufficiently established the case in her favour---There was no rebuttal, therefore, judgment and decree was fully justified on the basis of ex-parte evidence present before Trial Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the orders passed by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Syed Arshad Ali v. Said Ali 2018 YLR 779; Shah Qaimoos Khan and 4 others v. Faizullah Khan and another 2020 CLC 111; Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd) Bahawalnagar v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1981 SC 21; Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 3 others v. Mir Khan Muhammad Khan Jamali and another 2006 CLC 92; Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Honda Sarhad (Pvt) Ltd. and others 2005 SCMR 609; 2008 SCMR 287; Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen 2006 SCMR 631; Kiramat Khan v. IG, Frontier Corps and others 2023 SCMR 866; Chief Executive Officer NPGL, GENCO-III,TPS, Muzafargarrah v. Khalid Umar Tariq Imran and others 2024 SCMR 518 and Moon Enterprises CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Delaying tactics---Abuse of process of law---Remedy---Court of law can counter deliberate attempts for prolonging delays and causing abuse of process of a Court, in two ways; first to avoid unnecessary and undue leniency in the matter of setting aside those orders where the Court reaches a conclusion that the other party has deliberately absented themselves or defaulted in performance of some activities, required for further progress of suit, without any reasonable cause; secondly, when the Court is of the opinion that a party has defaulted in its duty vis-a-viz progress of suit but the Court considers that interest of justice would be served by affording further chances, then the Court should levy cost which should be sufficient for fully compensating the other party for the time and money spent by it in procuring legal assistance as well as the inconvenience caused to it due to delay in the proceedings---Imposing proper and reasonable amount of cost in such cases would not only ensure justice to affected parties but would also be working as deterrence for the party, which deliberately and maliciously employ delaying tactics, which causes undue delay in litigation---Genuine cases where a party is prevented by sufficient cause in attending to a step in litigation should however be treated differently and in such cases lenient approach should be adopted. Muhammad Amin Khattak Lachi for Petitioners. Haji Zahir Shah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th July, 2024.

Summary: the appellant contested the preliminary judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023 issued by the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The suit, initiated by the respondents on 26.06.2021, sought a declaration, separate possession through partition, rendition of accounts, recovery of mesne profits, and permanent and mandatory injunction for House No. 181, Gomal Road, Sector E-7, Islamabad. The learned civil court partially decreed the suit and appointed a local commission to determine the value of the shares of the respondents and the appellant. ----Issues: 1. Whether the suit property, House No. 181, can be partitioned given the CDA regulations. 2. Whether the suit was maintainable without the impleadment of all relevant parties. 3. Whether the suit for partition should proceed given the objections to pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Whether the appellant's exclusive possession of the suit property should continue. 5. Whether the respondents have a right to access and sell their share in the suit property. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The court upheld the preliminary judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023, dismissing the appeal with costs. The court found that the suit property could not be partitioned as per CDA regulations and that the property should be auctioned with proceeds divided among the co-owners. Reasoning: The court reasoned that: The suit property, consisting of House No. 181-A and House No. 181-B, could not be bifurcated according to CDA regulations as the plot size did not meet the minimum requirements for subdivision. The objections regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability were found to be attempts to delay the proceedings. The appellant had previously consented to the partition of the property, making her objections invalid. The appellant’s refusal to share possession with her co-owners and her attempts to involve other parties were seen as inequitable conduct. The learned civil court correctly appointed a local commission to assess the value of the shares and proposed a public auction for House No. 181-A, ensuring fair division of proceeds among the co-owners. Outcome: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable to each of the respondents. The court affirmed the learned civil court's decision for public auction of the suit property, ensuring an equitable distribution of the sale proceeds. ----Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Rasool Vs. Muhammad Khalid (2006 YLR 2289) Azhar Hussain Shah Vs. Member Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2016 YLR 1489) Mazullah Khan Vs. Taraja Begum (2020 YLR 2206) Ghulam Nabi Vs. Faisal Naveed (2003 SCMR 1794) Abdul Ghani Vs. Yasmeen Khan (2011 SCMR 837) Sultan Vs. Muhammad Hussain (2006 MLD 659) Muhammad Umar Khan Vs. Aziz Begum (2001 MLD 448) Aamir Masood Vs. Khurshid Begum (2001 MLD 159) Muhammad Adil Vs. Muhammad Amir (2023 SCMR 1032) Muhammad Haneef Vs. Abdul Samad (PLD 2009 SC 751) Manzoor Hussain Vs. Muhammad Nawaz (2010 SCMR 1042) Allah Bukhsh Vs. Bakhtawar (2018 CLC 1070)

Summary: Background:Civil Petition No. 4194 of 2023 was filed by Tariq Zubair Khan against Mst. Tabassum Khan and others in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petition challenged the order dated 27.09.2023 by the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order concerning the auction of property inherited from their deceased parents. The property in question is House No.582, Street No.13, Sector G-10/1, Islamabad. A preliminary decree for partition was issued, followed by an auction conducted by a Court Auctioneer.---Issues:The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Islamabad High Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding his objections to the auction process. Specifically, the petition addressed whether the objections were correctly handled under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly focusing on the application of Order XXI, Rules 84 and 90.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's ruling. The Court found that the petitioner had not properly challenged the auction under the relevant rules of the CPC intended for such objections (Order XXI, Rule 89 or 90). Instead, he filed under Rule 84, which pertains to the immediate payment obligations of a purchaser, not to the auction's procedural challenges.The Court noted that objections to the auction process on grounds of material irregularity or fraud should have been made under Rule 90, which also requires depositing 20% of the auction proceeds as a condition to entertain such objections. The petitioner failed to meet these procedural requirements, leading to the dismissal of his objections and subsequent appeals.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Attique vs Jami Limited and others (PLD 2010 SC 993): Discussed the procedural requirements and the effects of auction sales under CPC, highlighting that title transfer is contingent upon the confirmation of the auction sale and compliance with Rules 89, 90, and 91 of Order XXI.Mst. Samrana Nawaz and others vs MCB Bank Ltd and others (PLD 2021 SC 581): Addressed the requirements under the second proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90, clarifying the timing and amount of the deposit required to challenge an auction sale.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Adil and other petitioners contested the auction process of certain properties following a suit for possession through partition initiated by the predecessor in interest of respondents No.1 to 3. The trial court's decisions to appoint a local commission and later a court auctioneer to handle the sale of properties were disputed by the petitioners, leading to objections against the auction proceedings and the eventual sale of a property to plaintiff No.3. Both the objection petitions and subsequent appeal by the petitioners were dismissed, prompting the filing of a civil revision petition.-----Issues:The validity of the petitioners' objection petition based on the non-deposition of 50% of the successful bid amount as required under Rule 90, Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The legal standing of plaintiff No.3 (a decree-holder) to participate in the auction under the amended Rule 72 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, as per Lahore High Court Amendment Notification No.237/Legis/XI-Y-26 dated 22.08.2018.The procedural regularity of the auction proceedings conducted by the court auctioneer.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision petition. The Court found that the petitioners failed to deposit 50% of the successful bid amount with their objection petition, rendering it not entertainable. Additionally, the amended Rule 72 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, explicitly allows decree-holders to participate in auction proceedings, validating plaintiff No.3's bid. The Court also noted that the auction process followed legal procedures, including proper publication and notice service, with no procedural irregularities or illegalities identified in the auctioneer's report or the petitioners' objections. Thus, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the revision petition for lack of substance.----Citations/Precedents:Rule 90, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Governs the application to set aside a sale on the grounds of irregularity or fraud, requiring the depositor to deposit a significant portion of the sale sum or furnish security.Rule 72, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by Lahore High Court Amendment Notification No.237/Legis/XI-Y-26 dated 22.08.2018): Allows decree-holders to participate in the auction of properties involved in their decree executions, with provisions for the set-off of purchase money against the decree amount.