IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.84 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.5.2011. ------------------------------------------------------ Rupan Deal Bajaj Petitioners. Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner: Mr. Satyan Vaidya, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Ms. Shilpa Sood,Central Govt. Counsel For respondent No.2: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General V.K.Ahuja (Oral). The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, against the order dated 21.2.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, in a review petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, had earlier filed an application for Impleadment of defendants No.3 to 13, as defendants, being the subsequent purchasers. The said application was filed in the year 1998, when the case was pending before this Court, and subsequently the said application was withdrawn on 13.9.1999. After eleven years, another application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiff on 15.3.2010 for Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? impleading the same defendants for which earlier application was filed and was later on withdrawn. 3. On this application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, now the learned trial Court passed an order on 15.11.2010, which reads as under:- “In view of the principle of lis-pendence incorporated in section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act and the law pronounced thereon by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in CCC 2007(1) page 401, I do not think it necessary to issue process of the remaining LRs, hence application already filed stands disposed. No additional issue arises nor there is any reason for framing additional issue in the absence of any new pleadings. So now to come up for additional evidence, if any, all the plaintiffs in terms of order dated 23.2.2010.” 4. Thereafter, the application was filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 15.11.2010. The learned trial Court disposed of the said application vide its impugned order, which is under challenge. It is clear from a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court that the Court has observed that the applicants had prayed that the respondents be impleaded as a party and dismissed the review application with the observation that no case was made out for review in the earlier order. The learned trial Court had observed that in view of the principle of lis-pendence and in view of the decision of the Apex Court, they are not necessary parities to the suit. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. The first point, which goes against the petitioner is that he had earlier filed an application to implead the same defendants and thereafter filed the subsequent application, while the first application was got dismissed as withdrawn. By filing the present application, the petitioner nowhere prayed that since they are intending to raise construction or change the nature of the land, no effective decree can be passed until and unless the proposed defendants are impleaded as a party. The learned trial Court has rightly referred to the decision of the Apex Court in which it was observed that there is no legal necessity to array that party in a suit or any judgment or decree passed and it would be binding in view of the principle of lis-pendence applied. It is not legally necessary to implead those transferors as party in that suit. However, if they are raising any construction or changing the nature of the land and no effective decree can be passed in their favour by the Court, then there is any necessity to implead the defendant, as a party. 7. In so far as the fact that no issue arises, it is for the learned trial Court to consider as to whether any proposed issue arises with the amended plaint as per the provisions of C.P.C. If necessary, the plaintiff may apply for the same so that an additional issue can be framed, if required. Until and unless the plaint is amended, it does not make any cause for framing of issues, no fresh issue could have been framed by the learned trial Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the petition, does not call for any interference by this Court and as such the petition is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. May 25, 2011 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (mlg) Judge.