( 2025:HHC:41828 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 35 of 2021 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025. Shakuntla Devi & Anr. .....Petitioners Versus Ranjeet Singh & Ors. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a), 1(b) and 2. Nemo for other respondents. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.02.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., whereby a composite application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading Smt. Rekha Devi w/o Shri Balbir Singh, d/o Shri Roop Singh, R/o Village Thana, P.O. Bani, Mauza Dhatwal, Tehsil Barsar, District 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2( 2025:HHC:41828 ) Hamirpur, H.P., as proforma defendant No. 7, has been disallowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. In order to determine the real question of controversy inter se the parties, a reference to the plaint filed in the case at hand would be relevant. The suit in the present case was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c), 6, and the present petitioners. In the suit so filed, it was averred that the suit land was ancestral property in the hands of the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, i.e., the father of original plaintiff No. 1 (predecessor-in-interest of present proforma respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c), present proforma respondent No. 2 (original plaintiff No. 2), and present respondent No. 1 (original defendant); the father-in-law of the present petitioner (original plaintiff No. 2); and the grandfather of present proforma respondents No. 3 and 4 (original proforma defendants in the suit). 3( 2025:HHC:41828 ) 4. It has further been averred in the suit that, on account of a private partition inter se the parties during the lifetime of their predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Roop Singh, the suit property came into the possession of the original parties to the lis in equal shares. However, it was alleged in the suit that present respondents No. 1 and 2 (original defendants), on the basis of certain fake and vexatious documents, in connivance with the Revenue Officials, were threatening to dispossess the present petitioners/plaintiffs. Hence, from the averments in the suit, it is evident that the present petitioners, present proforma respondent No. 6, and the predecessor-in- interest of present proforma respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c) were seeking a declaration regarding their share in the suit land and, in addition, seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining present respondents No. 1 and 2 (original defendants) from getting the mutation attested in their favour and from dispossessing the petitioners/plaintiffs. 5. To the suit so filed, a written statement was submitted by present respondents No. 1 and 2. They 4( 2025:HHC:41828 ) claimed rights in the property on the basis of two valid registered wills executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, Roop Singh, in their favour. 6. Issues were framed, and post-framing of issues, evidence was recorded. After a protracted trial, the matter was listed for hearing on 10.12.2019. On the said date, an application was filed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs seeking the impleadment of one of the legal heirs of deceased Roop Singh, namely Smt. Rekha Devi, w/o Shri Balbir Singh, d/o Shri Roop Singh, r/o Village Thana, P.O. Bani, Mauza Dhatwal, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. 7. In response to the application, it was stated that the same had been filed solely to prolong the proceedings. It was further contended that Smt. Rekha Devi was not a necessary party to the lis in the case at hand. 8. In the case at hand, rights with respect to the suit land have been claimed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs and the present proforma respondents. Such rights are claimed on the basis of the property being ancestral and pursuant to a private 5( 2025:HHC:41828 ) partition inter se the parties. The suit was filed on the apprehension of an infringement of these rights. In the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, the trial Court has correctly observed that the proposed amendment was not essential for the determination of the real question of controversy between the parties. 9. Besides the aforesaid, the present petitioners were the plaintiffs before the trial Court, being the dominus litis, they chose not to implead Smt. Rekha Devi. Nothing was averred in the plaint to show that Smt. Rekha Devi had any interest in the suit property. 10. Moreover, in terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, post framing of issues, it was incumbent upon the present petitioners/plaintiffs to demonstrate that, despite due diligence, the amendment now sought could not have been raised before the commencement of the trial. In the composite application filed seeking impleadment and amendment such plea/averment is conspicuous by absence. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2008, and after a protracted trial, when the case reached its culmination, the present application for 6( 2025:HHC:41828 ) impleadment was filed. The sole purpose of the application is to prolong the case unnecessary. 11. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22.12.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 04th December, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)