RAM PARKASH Vs. ANIL KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff propounded the testamentary disposition of the deceased testator, one Santosh Kumari, wife of late Sunder Dass, resident of Una, H.P. The plaintiff claimed a declaratory decree qua the aforesaid Will being declared to be validly executed. However, during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court, the suit property was alienated by the GPA of co-defendant No.3 Asha Rani vis-à-vis the latters' offsprings' namely Dinesh and Rajni Bala, consequence whereof being, of, an application cast under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC standing instituted before the learned trial Court, wherein a prayer, was made, that the aforesaid alienees lis pendens being impleaded as parties to the lis, their impleadment being imperative, for ensuring a complete adjudication upon the entire gamut of the controversy, engaging the parties at contest. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned trial Court, being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff has instituted the instant petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended with vigor that the order under challenge before this Court, is ridden with a vice of illegality besides material irregularity, arising, from the factum of the learned trial Court remaining oblivious to the fact of impleadment of the alienees lis pendens, being neither just nor essential, nor theirs being either a necessary or a proper party. For carrying forward his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in titled as Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others,1997 Supp CivCC 50 the relevant paragraphs 5 and 6 whereof are extracted hereunder:-

(3.) On anvil of the aforesaid extracted relevant paragraphs 5 and 6, he submits that with theirs' encapsulating an absolute interdiction, against, impleadment in the apposite suit, of alienees lis pendens, given theirs attracting vis-à-vis them the doctrine of lis pendens, rendering hence perse void all alienation(s) lis pendens, even without a specific relief in respect of, it, being prayed to be quashed and set aside. For the aforesaid submission(s) addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to hold vigor, he was enjoined to display, of, it falling in absolute tandem with the ratio decidendi encapsulated in the judgment relied upon by him, whereas, upon its incisive reading, its, unfolding its not expostulating the aforesaid either as an omnibus stare decisis nor as a ratio decidendi, thereupon this Court would be constrained to reject his submissions. In summa for the hereinafter ascribed reasons, the Court is constrained to reject the espousals, of, the learned counsel for the petitioner. (a) The learned counsel for the petitioner inappropriately relying upon the aforesaid citation, to concomitantly, inaptly espouse of his submissions' embodying the ratio decidendi propounded in the judgment relied upon by him. (b) The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court for its in tandem with his submission(s), hence propounding a vigorous ratio decidendi also its being rendered binding upon this Court, is enjoined to unveil, of, absolute similarity besides complete analogity existing also emerging inter-se the factual matrix therein vis-à-vis the facets at hand. Contrarily if there is a display of gross indistinctivity(s) inter-se the factual matrix prevailing therein vis-à- vis the facets prevailing hereat, thereupon the citation as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be rendered inapplicable hereat.