IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 19^th DAY OF APRI L, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) No.38 of

2021 Between:

SNEH LATA, W/O SH. PUSHPINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARI KALAN, PARGANA, AJMERPUR, SUB TEHSIL BHARARI, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P. AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO.3, M.C. AREA, PRATAP NAGAR, TAPPA BAJURI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

….PETITIONER/APPLICANT.

(BY. MR. NEEL KAMAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SH. DILBAG RAJ, 2. DALJIT, 3. KAMALJIT &

4. ASHWANI, ALL SONS OF SH. KHUSHI RAM, 5. KULJIT, 6. RAVI KANT, 7. PARVEEN KUMAR, 8. VIPAN, ALL SONS OF LATE SH. JAIPAL WALIA, 9. SITA DEVI WIDOW OF LATE SH. JAIPAL WALIA, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE THAN, TAPPA JANGAL ROPA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

….RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS.

10. MOHAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS:

10 (a) OM PARKASH, S/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL, 10 (b) DINESH KUMAR, S/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL, 11. RAVINDER SINGH, 12. VARINDER SINGH &

13. PUSHPINDER SINGH ALL SONS OF SH. PARDHAN SINGH, 14. SUSHIL KUMAR &

16. MOHAN SINGH, BOTH SONS OF SH. NIHALA, 17. SAROJ KUMARI, WIFE OF KASHMIR SINGH, 18. LEKH RAM SON OF KRISHAN DASS ALIAS JAMUNA ALL RESIDENTS OF UP MAHAL PARTAP NAGAR, MAUJA BAJURI, TEHSIL AND DISTT. HAMIRPUR, H.P.

…...PROFORMA RESPONDENTS.

(NOTICE CONFINED TO RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 ONLY.)

(BY. MS. MEENAKSHI THAKUR, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9)

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No This petition coming on for admissionf this day, the Court passed the following: J U D G M E N T By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 17.12.2020, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Hamirpur, H.P., in C.M.A. No.236/2020, in Civil Suit No. 109/2010, titled as Dilbag Raj and others Versus Mohan lal (now deceased) and others, vide which an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner herein has been rejected.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that an application was filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner herein for being impleaded as a party defendant, in Civil Suit No. 109/2020, on the ground that during the pendency of said suit, the petitioner/applicant had purchased 49-00 sqmt. of the suit land on 15.11.2014 from defendant No.1 Shri Mohan Lal. At the time of purchase of the land, the factum of the pendency of the Civil Suit was not brought into her notice by Shri Mohan Lal. Not only this, after the death of Shri Mohan Lal, when his legal representatives were brought on record in the Civil Suit, then also the factum of the sale of land by Shri Mohan Lal to thef present petitioner was not disclosed. It is in this background that the application was filed by the petitioner herein, stating therein that as she had now become co-owner of the suit proprerty, therefore, she was a necessary party for the decision of the suit.

3. The application has been rejected by the learned Court below byC observing that the transfer of the part of the suit property by Shri Mohan Lal during his life time, during the pendency of the Civil Suit in favour of the petitioner was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens in terms of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of iProperty Act and the presence of the petitioner was not at all necessary to decide the issues involved more so when after the death of defendant No.1, the legal representatives of said defendant already stood brought on record and further the share of the parties to the lis would be determined in case the suit was decreed and once the share of defendant No.1 was determined, then only the petitioner could claim any right over the suit land.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order as well as documents appended with this petition, this Court does not finds any infirmity with the order impugned.

5. It