Point of Law: Because of repeated institutions of applications by plaintiffs (petitioners), many of them for same purpose for which reliefs have already been declined to them by Courts earlier.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Challenge in this composite petition is to three separate orders passed by learned Trial Court on three different dates i.e. 16.01.2021, 28.01.2021 and 18.02.2021 whereby three different applications moved by the plaintiffs were dismissed. It has to be stated at the very outset that three separate orders passed by the learned Trial Court on three different dates in three separate applications moved by plaintiffs were required to be challenged by moving separate petitions. Instant composite petition assailing all the above three different orders cannot be held to be maintainable. However, considering that civil suit is pending ever since 2011, the ill filed petition is being considered on the merits of its challenge to the impugned orders.

2. The order dated 16.01.2021

In terms of this order, learned trial Court dismissed an application moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for impleading one Ishan Katoch as defendant No. 12 in this suit. The stated reason for moving this application was that defendant No. 2 had transferred part of suit land in Khasra No. 190 by way of registered sale deed prior to the institution of the present suit and also transferred some lands during the pendency of the suit to his son Ishan Katoch. The plaintiffs tried to impress in the application that for adjudicating the questions involved in the civil suit, impleadment of Ishan Katoch in the civil suit was necessary. Learned trial Court did not find force in the contentions of the plaintiffs and dismissed the application on 16.01.2021.

I have heard learned Senior Counsel on both sides. In my considered view, for the following reasons, there is no merit in plaintiffs’ petition against this order, rather moving of the application was itself an abuse of process of the Court by the plaintiffs.

2(a) It is not in dispute that prior to the instant application moved by the plaintiffs seeking impleadment of Ishan Katoch as defendant in the civil suit, they had earlier also moved three similar applications. One such application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was decided by the learned Trial Court on 20.08.2013. Second such application moved by the plaintiffs for the same purpose under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala on 28.05.2015 as not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter moved yet another application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the prayer for amendment of the plaint and also to implead Ishan Katoch as a defendant in the present suit. The application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.06.2019. The defendant assailed this order in Civil Revision No. 107 of 2019 before this Court. Civil Revision petition was allowed on 03.10.2019. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court on 06.06.2019 was set aside. The order dated 03.10.2019 dismissing plaintiffs’ composite application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of Ishan Katoch has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 31.01.2020 passed in SLP No. 425 of 2020. It is also not in dispute that while disposing of the matter, Hon’ble Apex Court looking to the age of the suit, has ordered the learned Trial Court to decide the civil suit within six months.

2(b) Notwithstanding dismissal of plaintiffs’ three successive applications seeking impleadment of Ishan Katoch as party defendant, the plaintiffs yet again moved another application on 14.01.2021 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead Ishan Katoch as defendant in the civil suit.

Once plaintiffs’ previous application seeking impleadment of Ishan Kumar as defendant in the civil suit had been dismissed not once, not twice, but thrice and once by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there arose no question of allowing same prayer of the plaintiffs merely because it was his fourth chance. The plaintiffs are guilty of abusing proce