IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6603 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 28, 2010 Grindlay Forestry (India) Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Narinder Kumar …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Abhinash Jain, Advocate for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit. The land in suit was alienated by respondent No.2 in favour of one Smt. Sushma wife of Rakesh Kumar vide sale deed dated 03.08.2007 during the pendency of the suit aforementioned. The plaintiff – petitioner, thereafter, filed a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for the impleadment of Mst. Sushma as a party. The plea was declined by the learned Trial Court by observing that the principle of lis-pendence applies and the presence of Mst. Sushma is not required for a complete and effectual adjudication of the controversy. I find myself in complete agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. C.R. No.6603 of 2009 It is not a case where the averments made by the plaintiff – petitioner are not being contested by the already impleaded respondents. In that view of things, any alienation of the suit property during the pendency of the suit would, obviously, be binding upon the alienee(s). The petition shall stand disposed of in limine accordingly. January 28, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2