IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 595 of 2025 Decided on: 09.10.2025 ____________________________________________________ Om Parkash Mehta and another ……….. petitioners Versus Usha Devi and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.6. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance before the trial Court. In the same, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by the present petitioners for amendment of the plaint. The same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 27.8.2025 (Annexure P-10) by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.III, Una in CMA 2316 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 90 of 2023 titled as Shri Om Parkash Mehta and others vs. Smt. Usha Devi and others. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith with the present petition. 3. Issues in the case at hand before the trial Court were framed on 19.7.2012. Thereafter the present petitioners (plaintiffs) closed their evidence on 22.7.2016. Similarly the defendants closed their evidence on 25.4.2019. Rebuttal evidence was also closed by the petitioners on 3.3.2020. Thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments. At that stage, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was filed for impleading respondents No.6 and 7. The same was allowed vide order dated 16.10.2023. The impleadment of respondents No. 6 & 7 was necessitated on account of respondent No.6 having attached the property which was a subject matter of the suit. 4. Respondent No.4 had taken a lease for collection of toll at the Parwanoo Unit, District Solan. In the payment of the toll of the Parwanoo Unit, there was a default on the part of respondent No.4. The default amount was declared as arrears of land revenue and it is on account thereof that the suit property had been got attached by respondent No.6. A request for attachment had been made by respondent No.6 to the Tehsildar concerned vide letter No. 1183 dated 28.1.2015. It is on the basis of the said communication, an entry was got incorporated in the 3 Jamabandi of respondent No.4 qua attachment of the suit property. 5. Insofar as respondent No.7 is concerned, the suit property had been got mortgaged with the said respondent. The aforesaid incorporations were reflected in the latest jamabandi for the year 2017-18. 6. By way of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which was filed on 8.1.2024, all that the present petitioners (plaintiffs) sought to incorporate in the plaint is the fact that the aforesaid incorporations made at the behest of respondents No. 6 & 7 in the Jamabandi for the year 2017-18 were hit by the principle of lis pendens. 7. Section 52 of the transfer of property Act 1882 incorporates the doctrine of lis pendens. As per the same, during the pendency of any suit wherein a right to immovable property is in question, the property which is a subject matter of the suit cannot be “transferred or otherwise dealt with” so as to affect the rights of any party to the suit. This section is based on the principle that if alienation pendente lite were permitted to prevail then it would be impossible to bring a suit to a successful termination. Transfers effected during the pendency of a suit do not render the suit void but only render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to the suit as may be eventually 4 determined in the suit. (See 2012 (7) SCC 738 titled as A. Nawab John vs. V.N. Subramaniyam). 8. The transferee pendente lite of an interest in the immovable property is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit wherein his predecessor-in-interest is already a party to the litigation. He is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. As has already stated supra. Respondents No. 6 & 7 already stands impleaded vide order dated 16.10.2023. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 27.8.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the trial Court wherein the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been dismissed by taking into account the proviso of the aforesaid provision. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 9th October, 2025 tarun