Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 304 (HP)

Rupa Suri v. Neelam Rana

2020-06-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J.: As similar factual matrix and common issues of law are involved in all these petitions, therefore, these petitions are being disposed of vide a common judgment. 2. Facts resulting in filing of each of the above petitions are mentioned hereinbelow in brief. (a) CMPMO No. 550 of 2017 (Rupa Suri Vs. Neelam Rana) 3. Respondent/plaintiff Neelam Rana has filed Civil Suit 147/1 of 2015/12 for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 17th June, 2000 with respect to land comprised in Khasra No. 137/12/2/4, measuring 015 biswas, out of Khasra No. 137/12/2, measuring 610 bighas alongwith the built up area, situated at Mauza Mashobra, Pargna Dharti, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan being result of fraud, misrepresentation and based upon forged documents, be cancelled and declared as illegal, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and a decree for possession alongwith structure on the same be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. This suit is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. Petitioner herein, namely, Rupa Suri is the defendant in the said suit. 4. Present petition has been filed by petitioner/defendant against order dated 05.10.2017, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in Applications No. 109/6 of 2017 & 110/6 of 2017, whereby, an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the said Court under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading one Shri Rajinder Singh as defendant, has been allowed by the learned Court below and application filed under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 2, Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed before the said Court by the present petitioner/defendant, has been dismissed. (b) CMPMO No. 551 of 2017 (Sanjiv Dewan Vs. Neelam Rana 5. (b) CMPMO No. 551 of 2017 (Sanjiv Dewan Vs. Neelam Rana 5. Respondent/plaintiff Neelam Rana has filed Civil Suit No. 146/1 of 2012/15 for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 31.05.2000 with respect to land comprised in Khasra No. 137/12/2/1, measuring 218 bighas, out of Khasra No. 137/12/2, measuring 610 bighas, out of which, there exists an uncompleted house on 8 biswas of land, situated at Mauza Mashobra, Pargna Dharti, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. being result of fraud, misrepresentation and based upon forged documents, be cancelled and declared as illegal, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and a decree for possession alongwith structure on the same be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. This suit is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. Petitioner herein, namely, Sanjiv Dewan is the defendant in the said suit. 6. Present petition has been filed by petitioner/defendant against order dated 05.10.2017, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in Applications No. 111/6 of 2017 and 112/6 of 2017, whereby, an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the said Court under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading one Shri Rajinder Singh as defendant has been allowed by the learned Court below and application filed under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 2, Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed before the said Court by the present petitioner/defendant has been dismissed. (c) CMPMO No. 171 of 2017 (Smt. Neelam Rana Vs. Smt. Roopa Suri) 7. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Neelam Rana against order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, feeling aggrieved by the fact that learned Court below while allowing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the said Court under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead one Shri Rajinder Singh as defendant, has not permitted the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the relief clause of her plaint, seeking declaration with regard to a General Power of Attorney. (d) CMPMO No. 173 of 2017 (Smt. Neelam Rana Vs. Sh. Sanjeev Diwan) 8. (d) CMPMO No. 173 of 2017 (Smt. Neelam Rana Vs. Sh. Sanjeev Diwan) 8. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Neelam Rana against order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, feeling aggrieved by the fact that learned Court below while allowing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the said Court under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead one Shri Rajinder Singh as defendant, has not permitted the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the relief clause of her plaint, seeking declaration with regard to a General Power of Attorney. (e) CMPMO No. 394 of 2018 (Mukesh Thareja Vs. Neelam Rana) 9. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant against order dated 09.08.2017, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in Application No. 149/6 of 2016 in Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12, vide which, an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the said Court by the respondent/plaintiff herein to implead Rajinder Singh as a defendant has been allowed by the leaned Court below. (f) CMPMO No. 175 of 2018 (Smt. Neelam Rana Vs. Sh. Mukesh Thareja) 10. This petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, i.e., plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12 against order dated 09.08.2017, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, feeling aggrieved by the fact that learned Court below while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff before the said Court under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead one Shri Rajinder Singh as defendant, has not permitted the petitioner to seek a declaration with regard to General Power of Attorney, as pleaded by her in her application. 11. Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2015/12, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Roopa Suri was initially filed in this High Court. Plaint was supported by the affidavit of Shri B.C. Rana, General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and was signed and verified at New Delhi on 15th May, 2012. The plaint was filed with the Registry of this Court on 30th June, 2012. Roopa Suri was initially filed in this High Court. Plaint was supported by the affidavit of Shri B.C. Rana, General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and was signed and verified at New Delhi on 15th May, 2012. The plaint was filed with the Registry of this Court on 30th June, 2012. In the written statement which was filed on behalf of the defendant on 17th November, 2012, preliminary objections were taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of essential and necessary parties and the same was also barred by limitation. 12. Civil Suit No. 146/1 of 2012/15, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Sanjeev Diwan was initially filed in this High Court. Plaint was supported by the affidavit of Shri B.C. Rana, General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and was signed and verified at New Delhi on 15th May, 2012. The plaint was filed with the Registry of this Court on 30th June, 2012. In the written statement which was filed on behalf of the defendant on 17th November, 2012, preliminary objections were taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of essential and necessary parties and the same was also barred by limitation. 13. Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12, titled as Smt. Neelam Rana Vs. Shri Mukesh Thareja was initially filed in this High Court. Plaint was supported by the affidavit of Shri B.C. Rana, General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and was signed and verified at New Delhi on 15th May, 2012. The plaint was filed with the Registry of this Court on 30th June, 2012. In the written statement which was filed on behalf of the defendant on 8th October, 2012, a preliminary objection was taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaint was filed with the Registry of this Court on 30th June, 2012. In the written statement which was filed on behalf of the defendant on 8th October, 2012, a preliminary objection was taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. In addition, as is evident from the amended written statement filed to the suit on 22nd March, 2013 (which amendment to the written statement was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 26.04.2013), a specific objection was taken by the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff had filed the suit in connivance with her General Power of Attorney Shri Rajinder Singh, who was not arrayed as party to the suit deliberately and intentionally and, therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 14. In the replications which were filed to the written statements in the above mentioned Civil Suits, it was denied by the plaintiff that the respective suits were bad for non-joinder of necessary parties or were barred by limitation. 15. For completion of records, it is pertinent to mention here that the issues in Civil Suit No. 54 of 2012 stood framed on 08.08.2013 at the stage when the said suit was pending adjudication before this Court itself. The issues so framed are quoted hereinbelow: “ (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of a decree for declaration against the defendant to the effect that the sale deed dated 10.11.2000 is as a result of fraud, misrepresentation and as such, is illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff alongwith consequential relief of possession, as prayed for vide prayer Clause (A)? OPP. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendant, as prayed for vide prayer clause (b)? OPP (3) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC being without any cause of action? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD (5) Whether the suit is not within time? ….OPD (6) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and vexatious and as such, liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs under Section 35A CPC? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD (5) Whether the suit is not within time? ….OPD (6) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and vexatious and as such, liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs under Section 35A CPC? OPD (7) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and if so, who is such party?...OPD (8) Relief.” 16. Record demonstrates that as far as Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2015/12, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Roopa Suri and Civil Suit No. 146/1 of 2012/15, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Sanjeev Dewan are concerned, issues have not been framed therein as yet. 17. Alongwith said civil suits, which were filed by plaintiff Neelam Rana, she had also filed applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for interim relief during the pendency of the Civil Suits. Said applications filed in Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2012/2015 and Civil Suit No. 146/1 of 2012/2015 stood dismissed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan vide order dated 24.12.2015. As common findings were returned in the orders which were passed by the learned Court below in the applications in both the suits, therefore, for the purpose of adjudication of these petitions, para 9 thereof is being quoted hereinbelow: “9. As discussed by me above, the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The documentary evidence brought on record by the respondent reveal that the applicant knew Sh. Rajender Singh and had executed a power of attorney in his favour which she later on revoked in the year 2007. The applicant claims that the power of attorney is forged but has not sought a declaration to that effect in the main suit. She claims that no power of attorney was executed in favour of Rajender Singh but has not made Rajender Singh as a party to the litigation. In the back drop of the above, I find that the applicant has not been able to satisfy this Court that all the three ingredients which entitle her to the discretionary relief of interim injunction exist in her favour. In the back drop of the above, I find that the applicant has not been able to satisfy this Court that all the three ingredients which entitle her to the discretionary relief of interim injunction exist in her favour. It is settled principle of law that even where prima facie case is in favour of the applicant/plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the other ingredients are not satisfied. On this, I also rely upon findings given by our own Hon’ble High Court in Sagar Chand Nayyar and others Vs. Manuj Nayyar and others reported in 2014 (2) Shim. L.C. 609, wherein the Honble High Court held that persons seeking injunction has to show that all the three principles i.e. prima facie, balance of convenience and that he will suffer irreparable loss, not only exist but coexist. Hence, the application is dismissed. It is clarified that the findings in the present application shall bear no impact on the merits of the main suit. Application stands accordingly disposed of. It, after due completion, be tagged with the main case file for record.” 18. It is evident from the above quoted para of the order passed by the learned Court below that what weighed with the learned Court alongwith other factors while disallowing the applications for interim relief, was the fact that the applicant/plaintiff had claimed that Power of Attorney, purportedly executed in the name of Sh. Rajinder Singh, was forged, yet no declaration to that effect was sought in the main suit, neither Rajender Singh was made a party to the litigation. 19. As already mentioned above, these orders were passed on 24.12.2015. Similar application filed in Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12 is pending, as per record. 20. Record further demonstrates that after the transfer of Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015 to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, the case was listed for recording of the evidence of the plaintiff initially for 17.11.2015. As no PWs. were present nor steps were taken in this regard, the case was ordered to be listed for recording of statements of PWs. on 12.01.2016. PWs. were not present on the said date, as steps were not taken to summon any witness by the plaintiff. As no PWs. were present nor steps were taken in this regard, the case was ordered to be listed for recording of statements of PWs. on 12.01.2016. PWs. were not present on the said date, as steps were not taken to summon any witness by the plaintiff. On the request of the plaintiff, the case was ordered to be listed for 29.03.2016, as a matter of last opportunity for recording the statements of plaintiff's witnesses. On the said date also, plaintiff did not examine any witness and on her prayer, another opportunity was granted to examine the plaintiff's witnesses and for the said purpose, the case was ordered to be listed on 02.04.2016. On the said date, an application was filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure accompanied with an unattested affidavit, which was withdrawn. 21. Record demonstrates that thereafter fresh applications were filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff in above three Civil Suits for impleading Rajinder Singh, the alleged General Power of Attorney holder, as a defendant in the suits. 22. Application in Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2015/12, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Roopa Suri was filed on 28.05.2016, application in Civil Suit No. 146/1 of 2012/15, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Sanjeev Dewan was filed on 28.05.2016 and application in Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Mukesh Thareja was filed on 31.05.2016. Similar averments were made in the applications which were filed in the above mentioned three civil suits to implead Rajinder Singh as a party defendant. Same were to the effect that the suits which were filed by the applicant/plaintiff, were being contested by the defendants on various legal grounds, including preliminary objection that the suits were bad for non-joinder of essential and necessary parties. It was mentioned in the applications that to avoid such technical defect in the plaints, the applicant intended to implead Rajinder Singh as a defendant in the respective suits and also intended to take the plea that General Power of Attorney in favour of said person was wrong, illegal and void and also intended to seek relief against the alleged General Power of Attorney by way of seeking an amendment in the plaint. 23. 23. The applications were resisted by the non-applicant/defendant, inter alia, on the ground that filing of applications was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the applications were in fact filed not to meet the preliminary objections so taken in the written statements, which were filed quite far back but to set at naught the findings recorded by the Court on 24.12.2015 in the order passed in application (s) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure that Rajinder Singh had not been impleaded as a party in the suit nor any declaration stood sought by the plaintiff to the effect that the Power of Attorney executed purportedly in favour of Rajinder Singh was illegal and void. It was also stated in the replies that the alleged amendment being sought was otherwise time barred and the applicant/plaintiff could not be permitted to withdraw or take away the admissions made by her in her affidavit dated 15th March, 2007 as also letter dated 20th March, 2007 so submitted to Sub-Registrar, Kasauli. It was also mentioned in the replies that the relief being claimed against Rajinder Singh was hopelessly time barred and valuable rights which had accrued in favour of the defendants would be taken away in case the applications were allowed, as prayed for. 24. In addition, the defendants in Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2015/12 and Civil Suit No. 146/1 of 2012/15 also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 9, read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of essential and necessary party, i.e., Rajinder Singh and for omitting to claim a relief which the plaintiff was entitled to claim at the time of filing the suit. Said application was filed in the Court on 17.06.2017. 25. By way of orders which stand impugned in these six petitions, the applications which were filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of Rajinder Singh as a defendant in the suit (s), stand allowed by the learned Court below, whereas the applications filed under Order 1 Rule 9, read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stand dismissed by the learned Court below. In addition, while allowing the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Court below has permitted the plaintiff only to implead Rajender Singh as a defendant, however, she has not been permitted to amend the relief clause of her plaint, seeking a declaration with regard to the General Power of Attorney. This is the background in which all these petitions have been filed. 26. Learned Court below while disposing of the applications filed before it under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff and under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants in Civil Suit Nos. 147/1 of 2015/12 and 146/1 of 2012/15 has held that though applications to implead Rajender Singh as a party defendant in the suits were not filed at the earliest by the plaintiff, yet as evidence of the parties had not yet been recorded, therefore, allowing the applications would not cause grave prejudice to the other side. 27. Learned Court also held that it was settled law that all parties who are necessary to a lis, should be joined for proper adjudication of the lis and further it was the case of the defendants themselves that Rajinder Singh was a necessary party. After referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shiv Nath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC 147 , learned Court held that as Rajinder Singh was a necessary party and as his impleadment in the case would enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the issues involved in the suit, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the prayer of the plaintiff to the extent that Rajinder Singh was a necessary party and should be impleaded as a party, had to be allowed. It further held that as far as the prayer of the defendants in Civil Suit Nos. 147/1 of 2015/12 and 146/1 of 2012/15 in the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the suit should be dismissed, was not acceptable, because the trial of the suit was yet to open and before that Rajinder Singh was being impleaded as a party. Regarding prayer of the plaintiff to amend the plaint seeking a declaration for relief clause to the effect that General Power of Attorney in favour of Rajinder Singh was wrong, null and void, learned Court held that the plaintiff had filed the suit on 30.06.2012 and in her prayer clause, she had not prayed for a declaration that the alleged Power of Attorney was illegal, null and void or a result of fraud, although, it was the substance of her plaint that the General Power of Attorney was forged and fabricated. Learned Trial Court held that as from the date of filing of the plaint, almost five years had passed when the applications were filed by the plaintiff, thus, it was apparent that declaration which was being sought qua General Power of Attorney, was definitely hit by limitation and by virtue of Rajinder Singh being brought on record as a defendant, plaintiff cannot get her plaint amended seeking declaration, which was time barred. Learned Trial Court also held that the plea taken by the plaintiff regarding the General Power of Attorney, in the plaint, would be considered at the time of trial, but the plaintiff could not be allowed to add a relief part qua declaration regarding General Power of Attorney, since it was not initially sought by her at the time of filing of the suit nor any application for amendment was filed during this period, and since then five years had elapsed. Learned Court also held that the question of limitation will also remain open during the trial and it was settled law that suit against the newly added party is deemed to have been instituted from the date when permission to implead the party is granted. On these bases, learned Trial Court held that suit against Rajinder Singh, who was being impleaded as a party, shall be deemed to have been instituted from the date of order and all questions with regard to limitation shall remain open and will be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the suits. 28. On these bases, learned Trial Court held that suit against Rajinder Singh, who was being impleaded as a party, shall be deemed to have been instituted from the date of order and all questions with regard to limitation shall remain open and will be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the suits. 28. By returning said findings, learned Trial Court allowed the applications which were filed by the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure partially, but dismissed the applications which were filed under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants in Civil Suit Nos. 147/1 of 2015/12 and 146/1 of 2012/15. 29. For the matter of record, it is clarified that no application under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12, titled as Neelam Rana Vs. Mukesh Thareja. 30. When CMPMO Nos. 550 of 2017 and 551 of 2017 were initially filed in this court, the prayers made therein were to the following effect: CMPMO No. 550 of 2017 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (a) Quash and set aside the impugned order Annexure A6, dated 05.10.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli in Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2015/12, whereby he was pleased to dismiss the application under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC of the petitioner (original defendant) with all consequences flowing therefrom in favour of the present petitioner (original defendant) and against the plaintiff/respondent. (b) Call for the records of the Court (s) below i.e. the record of the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kasauli, as also the record of the Ld. District Judge, Solan, pertaining to the appeal filed by the present petitioner (original defendant) against the present respondent/original plaintiff, challenging the impugned order whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC moved by the present respondent (original plaintiff) was allowed by the Ld. Court below and thereafter decide the present matter alongwith the said appeal. District Judge, Solan, pertaining to the appeal filed by the present petitioner (original defendant) against the present respondent/original plaintiff, challenging the impugned order whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC moved by the present respondent (original plaintiff) was allowed by the Ld. Court below and thereafter decide the present matter alongwith the said appeal. (c) Allow the application under Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC, and thus dismiss the suit of the present respondent (original plaintiff). (d) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Ld. Court in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent (original plaintiff), in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the case. (e) Allow costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” CMPMO No. 551 of 2017 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (a) Quash and set aside the impugned order Annexure A6, dated 05.10.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli in Civil Suit No. 146/1 of 2012/15, whereby he was pleased to dismiss the application under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC of the petitioner (original defendant) with all consequences flowing therefrom in favour of the present petitioner (original defendant) and against the plaintiff/respondent. (b) Call for the records of the Court (s) below i.e. the record of the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kasauli, as also the record of the Ld. District Judge, Solan, pertaining to the appeal filed by the present petitioner (original defendant) against the present respondent/original plaintiff, challenging the impugned order whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC moved by the present respondent (original plaintiff) was allowed by the Ld. Court below and thereafter decide the present matter alongwith the said appeal. (c) Allow the application under Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC, and thus dismiss the suit of the present respondent (original plaintiff). (d) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Ld. Court in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent (original plaintiff), in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the case. (e) Allow costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” 31. (d) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Ld. Court in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent (original plaintiff), in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the case. (e) Allow costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” 31. During the pendency of these petitions, applications were filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners for amendment of the petitions, which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 31st October, 2019 and now the prayers which have been made in these two petitions post amendment read as under: CMPMO No. 550 of 2017 “ (a) Quash and set aside the impugned order Annexure A6, dated 05.10.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli in Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2015/12, whereby he was pleased to allow the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and was further pleased to dismiss the application under Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC of the petitioner (original defendant) with all consequences flowing therefrom in favour of the present petitioner (original defendant) and against the plaintiff/respondent, including that of the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff as being barred by limitation. (b) Call for the records of the Court (s) below i.e. the record of the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kasauli, as also the record of the Ld. District Judge, Solan, pertaining to the appeal filed by the present petitioner (original defendant) against the present respondent/original plaintiff, challenging the impugned order whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC moved by the present respondent (original plaintiff) was allowed by the Ld. Court below and thereafter decide the present matter alongwith the said appeal. (c) Allow the application under Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC, and thus dismiss the suit of the present respondent (original plaintiff). (d) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Ld. Court in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent (original plaintiff), in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the case. (c) Allow the application under Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC, and thus dismiss the suit of the present respondent (original plaintiff). (d) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Ld. Court in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent (original plaintiff), in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the case. (e) Allow costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” CMPMO No. 551 of 2017 “ (a) Quash and set aside the impugned order Annexure A6, dated 05.10.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli in Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2015/12, whereby he was pleased to allow the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and was further pleased to dismiss the application under Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC of the petitioner (original defendant) with all consequences flowing therefrom in favour of the present petitioner (original defendant) and against the plaintiff/respondent including that of the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff as being barred by limitation. (b) Call for the records of the Court (s) below i.e. the record of the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kasauli, as also the record of the Ld. District Judge, Solan, pertaining to the appeal filed by the present petitioner (original defendant) against the present respondent/original plaintiff, challenging the impugned order whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC moved by the present respondent (original plaintiff) was allowed by the Ld. Court below and thereafter decide the present matter alongwith the said appeal. (c) Allow the application under Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC, and thus dismiss the suit of the present respondent (original plaintiff). (d) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Ld. Court in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent (original plaintiff), in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the case. (e) Allow costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” 32. Before proceeding further, I will, in brief, refer to the respective arguments which were raised in support of their contentions by learned counsel for the parties. 33. Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in CMPMO Nos. (e) Allow costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” 32. Before proceeding further, I will, in brief, refer to the respective arguments which were raised in support of their contentions by learned counsel for the parties. 33. Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in CMPMO Nos. 550 and 551 of 2017 primarily argued that the orders passed by the learned Court below, impleading Rajinder Singh as a party defendant in the suits and dismissing the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants in the two respective suits are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as learned Court has erred in not appreciating that filing of the applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an abuse of the process of law and the same stood filed by the plaintiff to fill up the lacunae in the suits. He argued that learned Court erred in not appreciating that as the suits were bad for non-joinder of necessary party, the plaintiff in all likelihood was to be nonsuited and the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not meant to come to the rescue of a party, who does not approaches the Court bonafidely. He further contended that at the time when the suits were filed by the plaintiff, she elected not to implead Shri Rajinder Singh as a defendant nor claimed any relief against him. This decision of the plaintiff was fait accompli and an extremely important right which had accrued upon the defendant by the said act of the plaintiff could not have been wiped away by the learned Trial Court by allowing a belated applications filed by the plaintiff for impleading Rajinder Singh as party defendant. He further argued that as the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed beyond limitation, the same could not have been allowed and further, as the suit itself was barred by limitation, therefore, learned Court below was bound to have had dismissed the suit itself as time barred as well as for non-impleadment of necessary party. He argued that the impugned orders are otherwise also not sustainable in law as the applications which stood filed under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners/defendants in Civil Suit Nos. 147/1 of 2012/2015 and 146/1 of 2012/2015 have been dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned orders without assigning any reason whatsoever. Mr. Sood argued that preliminary objection stood taken by the defendants in each of the three Civil Suits filed by plaintiff Neelam Rana that besides the suits being barred by limitation, the same were also bad for non-joinder of necessary party. In Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12, it was specifically mentioned that suit was bad for non-joinder of Shri Rajinder Singh as a necessary party. Even in the other two Civil Suits, it was evident that who was the necessary party, which was not impleaded as a defendant in the said suits. He reiterated that the filing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading Rajinder Singh as a party defendant in the suit and also seeking relief qua permission to amend the plaint was an afterthought and an attempt to fill up the lacunae in the suits, as was evident from the fact that the applications were not filed immediately after filing of the written statements to the suits or within some reasonable time thereafter, but were filed after the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court by specifically holding that Rajinder Singh, who was a necessary party to the suit, was not impleaded as a defendant therein. He argued that the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 9 read with Order 2, Rule 2 (3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners/defendants in Civil Suit Nos. 147/1 of 2012/2015 and 146/1 of 2012/2015 stood dismissed without any due application of mind by the learned Trial Court, which has resulted in grave injustice to the defendants. According to Mr. 147/1 of 2012/2015 and 146/1 of 2012/2015 stood dismissed without any due application of mind by the learned Trial Court, which has resulted in grave injustice to the defendants. According to Mr. Sood, the suits filed by the plaintiff deserved dismissal for non-impleadment of Rajinder Singh, who was a necessary party, as the allegation was that the General Power of Attorney, on the strength of which sale deeds were executed by the plaintiff with the defendants, was a forged and fabricated General Power of Attorney in the name of and by Rajinder Singh and, but obvious, this allegation, which otherwise is false, could not have been taken to its logical conclusion in the Civil Suit without the impleadment of Shri Rajinder Singh. Mr. Sood also argued that Rajinder Singh was not initially impleaded as a defendant in the suit by the plaintiff, as she was aware of the fact that a legal and valid General Power of Attorney was in fact executed by her in favour of Rajinder Singh and the transactions which were conducted on the strength of said General Power of Attorney were genuine and legal sale transactions. Mr. Sood further argued that learned Trial Court has also erred in not appreciating that in the application which was filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, very cleverly, a prayer stood made for amendment of the plaint, which was outside the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Trial Court while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for impleading Rajinder Singh as a defendant. He further argued that when the learned Trial Court itself kept the issue of limitation open because, prima facie, learned Trial Court is also convinced that the suit against Rajinder Singh is palpably time barred, no fruitful purpose will be solved by going through the rigors of a trial and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Trial Court while not dismissing the suit itself being barred by limitation. Accordingly, he prayed that the order (s) impugned, be set aside and the suits be dismissed as time barred by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed that the order (s) impugned, be set aside and the suits be dismissed as time barred by this Court. Another point raised by Shri Sood during the course of his arguments on the point of limitation was that the sale deeds in issue were executed on 31.05.2000 and 17.06.2000, respectively and the suits were filed in this Court on 30th June, 2012, therefore, suits were admittedly filed beyond limitation within which a suit for declaration could have been filed and, thus also, the suits deserved dismissal, as the petitioners/defendants should not be forced to undergo a purposeless trial of a Civil Suit. Mr. Sood argued that the Civil Suits which have been filed by the plaintiff are liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the suits do not disclose any cause of action relating to the relief sought and this can be done by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is settled law that when the Court is satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding, the High Court can set aside the plaint to prevent abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice. Mr. Sood argued that while allowing the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that the applications which were filed by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court were time barred and therefore also, the same could not have been allowed. 34. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CMPMO No. 394 of 2018 and for the respondent in CMPMO No. 175 of 2018 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Counsel. 35. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Neelam Rana, who is respondent in CMPMO Nos. 550 and 551 of 2017 and CMPMO No. 394 of 2018 and petitioner in CMPMO Nos. 171, 173 and 175 of 2018 argued that the applications filed under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 2, Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants in Civil Suit Nos. 550 and 551 of 2017 and CMPMO No. 394 of 2018 and petitioner in CMPMO Nos. 171, 173 and 175 of 2018 argued that the applications filed under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 2, Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants in Civil Suit Nos. 147/1 of 2012/2015 and 146/1 of 2012/2015 were rightly dismissed by the learned Court below, as these applications were filed as an afterthought by the defendants therein after the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood filed by Ms. Neelam Rana for impleading Rajinder Singh as a party defendant in the suits. He argued that the plea of the plaintiff qua the relief which stood sought in the Civil Suits was not time barred and even otherwise this point shall be decided during the course of trial by the learned Court below. Learned counsel argued that there was no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court vide which it impleaded Rajinder Singh as a party defendant in the suits, as it was the own case of the defendants that Rajinder Singh was a necessary party for the purpose of adjudication of the Civil Suits. He also argued that as per the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, join such person as defendant whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. He submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court to implead Rajinder Singh as a party defendant was well within its domain and the same called for no interference. He submitted that whatever observations have been made by the learned Court in the applications filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure were only for the purpose of deciding the said applications and the same could not be relied upon before this Court by either of the party, as the Suits filed by the plaintiff have to be decided independently on the basis of respective pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence which the party adduce before the learned Court below. He further contended that the observations of the learned Court in the impugned orders with regard to the issue of limitation qua Rajinder Singh was a fact which would be decided by the Court after Rajinder Singh puts in appearance before the learned Court below and chooses to file his written statement. Learned counsel submitted that though there was no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Court below to the extent it had allowed the application filed by the plaintiff to implead Rajinder Singh as a party defendant and had dismissed the applications filed under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 2, Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the behest of two of the defendants, however, learned Court below has gravely erred in disallowing the request of the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint qua declaration with regard to the General Power of Attorney. He argued that it was a necessary amendment which went to the root of the case and in the absence of said relief being permitted to be added in the suit, the impleadment of Rajinder Singh as a defendant was of no consequence or relevance and just a mere formality. Learned Counsel also argued that the prayer of the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint was within the parameters of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a formal application would have had been filed by the plaintiff subsequently under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a formal amendment in the plaint, had prayer to amend the plaint been granted by the learned Trial Court. As per him, as a result of denial of said relief, as prayed for by the plaintiff to her before the learned Court below grave injustice was done to her. He argued that as far as the petitions filed by the defendants are concerned, the same be dismissed and the petitions filed by the plaintiff be allowed and the orders passed by the learned Court below be modified to the extent that the plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint, as prayed for in the applications. 36. He argued that as far as the petitions filed by the defendants are concerned, the same be dismissed and the petitions filed by the plaintiff be allowed and the orders passed by the learned Court below be modified to the extent that the plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint, as prayed for in the applications. 36. The purpose of giving in detail the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respective parties is that besides assailing the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below on merit, learned counsel for the parties have also in extentio argued that as this Court is seized with these petitions in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this Court in exercise of its powers of superintendence, can pass any order in the interest of justice, as it deems fit and it need not confine itself only to the legality of the orders impugned. 37. However, in my considered view, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court while exercising powers of superintendence has to act within bounds and this Court can neither be called upon nor it should enter into the adjudication of the main lis pending between the parties as if it was the original Court hearing the dispute. 38. Therefore, in the adjudication of these petitions, this Court is only going into the legality of the orders which have been passed by the learned Court below, i.e., the orders passed on the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Court below by the plaintiff in the three suits as also the orders passed in the applications filed in two suits by the defendant therein under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 2, Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 39. The dates on which the civil suits were filed as also the written statements thereto were filed have already been referred to by me hereinabove, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. The replications which were filed in each suit by the plaintiff in response to the written statements, deny the factum of the respective suits being barred by limitation or the same being bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 40. The replications which were filed in each suit by the plaintiff in response to the written statements, deny the factum of the respective suits being barred by limitation or the same being bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 40. I have mentioned hereinabove that the applications filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff in two out of three Civil Suits were dismissed by the learned Court below by passing similar orders, in which, observation was made with regard to non-joinder of Sh. Rajinder Singh as a defendant in the suit, is a fact which weighed upon the learned Court below while dismissing the said applications. 41. It is a matter of record that it was only thereafter that the applications were filed in each of the civil suits under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff for impleadment of Rajinder Singh as a party defendant. Filing of the applications under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 2, Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant in two out of the three civil suits was an act subsequent to the filing of the applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 42. Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, envisages that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any person, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added 43. Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Code provides that where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary. Sub-rule (5) therefo further envisages that subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. 44. Sub-rule (5) therefo further envisages that subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. 44. Section 21 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 envisages that where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party, provided that where the Court is satisfied that the omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith, it may direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date. Subsection (2) thereof provides that the provisions of Subsection (1) shall not apply to a case where a party is added or substituted owing to assignment or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit or where a plaintiff is made a defendant or a defendant is made a plaintiff. 45. Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it, provided that nothing in the said Rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. In other words, in my considered view, a plain reading of Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that a suit shall be defeated for non-joinder of a necessary party. 46. When three civil suits, subject matter of these petitions, were filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief sought therein on the basis of the pleadings, as are mentioned in the respective plaints, the plaintiff in her wisdom, chose not to implead Sh. Rajinder Singh as a party defendant nor any relief has been sought against him. Dominus litis, of course, is with the plaintiff and, as already mentioned hereinabove, she chose not to seek any relief against Sh. Rajinder Singh nor to implead him as a defendant in the suits. It goes without saying that this was done by the plaintiff at her own risk and peril. Dominus litis, of course, is with the plaintiff and, as already mentioned hereinabove, she chose not to seek any relief against Sh. Rajinder Singh nor to implead him as a defendant in the suits. It goes without saying that this was done by the plaintiff at her own risk and peril. When the written statements were filed to the civil suits by the respective defendants therein, as observed earlier also, preliminary objection was taken with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties as also limitation amongst other preliminary objections, which were denied in the replications by the plaintiff. Though in two out of the three civil suits, it was not specifically pointed out as to the suits were bad for non-joinder of which particular party, however, in Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2015/12, titled as Smt. Neelam Rana Vs. Shri Mukesh Thareja, in the preliminary objections which were taken in the amended written statement, it was specifically mentioned that suit was bad for non-joinder of Sh. Rajinder Singh. The objections so raised by the respective defendants in the written statements filed in three civil suits were not admitted to be correct by the plaintiff in the replications filed, as observed hereinabove. 47. Striking out or addition of the parties under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure can be done by the Court either upon or without the application of either party or its own, if it appears to the Court that presence of a party is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 48. In these cases, learned Trial Court suo moto did not felt the necessity of impleading Rajinder Singh as a party defendant to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The impugned orders to implead Rajinder Singh as a party have been passed by the learned Trial Court on applications which have been so filed by the plaintiff before it. 49. The impugned orders to implead Rajinder Singh as a party have been passed by the learned Trial Court on applications which have been so filed by the plaintiff before it. 49. Perusal of the applications which were filed before the learned Trial Court under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the three civil suits filed by the plaintiff demonstrates that the reasons mentioned for impleadment of Rajinder Singh as a defendant are that the defendants were contesting the suits on various legal grounds including preliminary objection with regard to non-joinder of essential and necessary parties. Therefore, in order to avoid the technical defect in the plaints, the plaintiff intended to implead Rajinder Singh as a party defendant and also to take the plea that General Power of Attorney issued in favour of the said person was wrong, illegal and void. It was also mentioned in the applications that the applicant intended to seek a declaration against the alleged General Power of Attorney by amending the plaints. Interestingly, para5 of the applications so filed by the plaintiff in the three civil suits (contents of which applications are verbatim) reads as under: “5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case Sh. Rajinder Singh is a necessary party to the present suit so as to adjudicate the matter on merits and grant justice to the parties on merits of their claim. Moreover, in view of objection taken by the respondent with regard to non-joinder of necessary party, the prayer of the applicant to implead alleged G.P.A. deserves to be granted in the interest of justice.” 50. The averments made in para5 thus are to the effect that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Rajinder Singh is a necessary party to the suits so as to adjudicate the matter on merit and grant justice to the parties. 51. Thus, the applicant in the same application, on one hand, stated that Rajinder Singh was being sought to be impleaded as a party to meet the technical objections of the defendants that the suit was bad for necessary parties and in the same breath, on the other hand, mentioned therein that Rajinder Singh was not indeed a necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to adjudicate the merit on merit. 52. 52. The reasoning assigned by the learned Court below for allowing the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been referred by me in detail hereinabove, which I am not repeating for the sake of bravity. Suffice it to say that learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that as Rajinder Singh was a necessary party, his impleadment in the case would enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate the case and settle all the questions involved in the suits to avoid multiplicity of litigation. This reasoning has been assigned by the learned Trial Court by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shiv Nath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC 147 . A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh’s case (supra) demonstrates that Hon'ble Court held in the said judgment that under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, the Court had the power to strike out or add the name of a party in a lis with or without application, but condition precedent is that the Court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added, is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Hon'ble Court has also held that to add a person as a party defendant was not a substantive right and thus was a discretion to be exercised by the Court, as the object of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, was to be bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction in convenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 53. In the suits filed before the learned Trial Court, there is no relief prayed for in the suits against Rajinder Singh. 53. In the suits filed before the learned Trial Court, there is no relief prayed for in the suits against Rajinder Singh. The relief prayed for therein is for declaration that sale deeds, subject matter of the said civil suits, allegedly executed by Rajinder Singh as a General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kasauli, was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, as such, illegal, void and inoperative against the plaintiff and for cancellation of the same and further for a decree of possession of the suit land. There is no declaration sought with regard to the purported General Power of Attorney referred to in the plaint. Why not, this Court cannot answer, because this is something which only the plaintiff can explain and what is the result thereof, but obvious, learned Trial Court has to decide on the basis of pleadings as well as the respective evidence which shall be led by the parties after the issues are framed. Similarly, if the plaintiff at the time of filing the applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure felt that Rajnder Singh was a necessary party for the adjudication of the suits, then question arises as to why he was not initially impleaded as a party defendant nor any relief was claimed against him. Not only this, why was no application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the defendant (s) at the earliest and within some reasonable time when the preliminary objection was taken by the defendant in the Civil Suits qua non-impleadment of necessary parties as defendants therein. This I say so for the reason that as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is settled law that the object of Order 1, Rule 10 is to discourage contests on technical pleas and to save 'honest and bona fide claimants from being non-suited” (See Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005 (11) SCC 403 ). 54. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005 (11) SCC 403 ). 54. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, in my considered view, the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not come to the rescue of the plaintiff for the simple reason that it is no where borne out from the applications which were filed under the said provisions of the Code for impleadment of Rajinder Singh as a party that it was on account of some bonafide error that Rajinder Singh was not impleaded as a party in the suits. In other words, the applications stood filed for impleadment of Rajinder Singh as a party defendant to fill up the lacunae in the suit in view of the objections which stood taken by the defendants in the respective written statements which were filed to the civil suits. 55. Not only the applications were filed at a belated stage, there is no cogent explanation in the applications as to why the same were filed at a belated stage or what prevented the applicants to file the applications at that stage, save and except the justifications which stand given therein, which have already been quoted hereinabove by me. 56. In the facts of these cases, it cannot be said that the plaintiff approached the Court by way of applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure honestly and with bonafide intents. Of course, the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are meant to save honest and bonafide claimants from being non-suited, however, said provisions cannot come to the aid of a party which with open eyes has failed to implead a necessary party as a defendant. Not only this, the provision further will not come to the rescue of a party, which in the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure fails to mention therein cogent and sufficient reasons as to why the party which was now being sought to be impleaded as a defendant, was not impleaded initially as such. Of course, the procedure is the handmaiden of justice, but the Court of law has to apply a pragmatic and reasonable yardstick so that while considering the effect of a fatal lapse on the part of one party to a lis, the rights which stand accrued upon the other party are not trampled, especially when the party immediately does not takes any steps to cure the lapse after objections in this regard are taken by the opponents in the written statement. That being so, the applications so filed by the plaintiff in the three suits under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not have been allowed by the learned Court below and the findings to the contrary returned by it are thus liable to be set aside. Learned Trial Court has erred in allowing the applications for impleadment of Sh. Rajinder Singh without appreciating that in the applications, which were filed by the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no sufficient explanation was given as to why Sh. Rajinder Singh was not impleaded as a party defendant at the time of filing of the suits. Learned Trial Court has also erred in not appreciating that filing of the applications was nothing but an attempt at the behest of plaintiff to fill up the lacunae in the suits. Learned Trial Court has also erred in not appreciating that though the provisions of impleadment of party to a lis are to be construed liberally, however, the provisions are meant to come to the rescue of a bonafide litigant and the same cannot be abused by a litigant by indulging in sharp practice to over come the lacunae in the suit. 57. Accordingly, in view of the findings returned hereinabove, the orders passed by the learned Court below, whereby it has allowed the impleadment of Shri Rajinder Singh as a party defendant in the above mentioned three civil suits, are set aside. As this Court has set aside the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, vide which it had ordered the impleadment of Shri Rajinder Singh in the Civil Suits, the petitions which have been filed before this Court against that part of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, vide which, learned Trial Court refused the plea of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, are accordingly dismissed. 58. 58. As far as the dismissal of applications filed by some of the petitioners herein, who had preferred applications under Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure are concerned, this Court observes that the dismissal of the said applications shall not come in the way of said petitioners raising the issue of all the suits being bad for non-joinder of necessary party at the appropriate stage. 59. Accordingly, CMPMO Nos. 550 & 551 of 2017 and CMPMO No. 394 of 2018 stand allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Court below of impleading Shri Rajinder Singh as a defendant in the three Civil Suits, whereas CMPMO Nos. 171, 173 and 175 of 2018 are dismissed. Parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court through counsel on 1st July, 2020 and thereafter learned Court below shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.