MEENAKSHI MALHOTRA Vs. G.L. TANDON (SINCE DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether an applicant seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"] read with Sec. 151 of the CPC, who asserts title or proprietary rights by virtue of a decree of this Court and/or by succession under a testamentary disposition of the decree-holder, ought to be permitted to be added as a party to pending consolidated proceedings, namely a partition suit and a connected probate/test case, notwithstanding the objections raised on grounds of delay, pendency of litigation under the doctrine of lis pendens, and/or alleged abatement of proceedings.

(2.) The present Appeal assails the correctness of the order dtd. 29/2/2024 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No.98/1998 & TEST.CAS. No.17/2005, whereby I.A. No.24024/2023 filed by the present Appellant under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment as a party in CS(OS) No.98/1998 was dismissed. The Appellant seeks setting aside of the Impugned Order and issuance of directions for her impleadment/substitution in the consolidated proceedings so that her asserted proprietary rights, flowing from the decree-holder Late Sh. Shoukat Rai Malhotra, may be adjudicated in her presence and to obviate the risk of conflicting decrees.

(3.) The relevant facts, as necessary for adjudication of the present Appeal, are briefly noted hereunder. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge. For clarity, the genealogy of the parties is set out below before adverting to the rival contentions.