1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 171 of 2017 Decided on : 27.8.2026 Rajesh Chander Sood & ors. … Petitioners Versus Joginder Singh & anr. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rajat Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) CMP No. 22305 of 2026 & C.R. No. 171 of 2017 By way of CMP No. 22305 of 2026, indulgence of this Court has been sought to permit the petitioners to withdraw the present petition with the liberty to file Regular Second Appeal. 2. In addition to this, a prayer has been made to grant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to them. 2 3. In view of order dated 13.8.2026, as well as, averments made in the application, the same is considered and allowed. 4. Order dated 13.8.20926 is reproduced as under: “The present petition has been filed, against the order dated 29.8.2016, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. By way of order dated 29.8.2016, Court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. has dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which has been filed in the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, against the judgment and decree, dated 3.4.2006, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. At this stage, it has been pointed out by Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, appearing for the respondents that the present petition is not maintainable. In order to buttress his contention, he has relied upon a four judges Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case, titled as ‘Sheodan Singh versus Daryao Kunwar, reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1332. Relevant paragraph-20 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “20. A consideration of the cases cited on behalf of the appellant therefore shows that most of them are not exactly in point so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. Our conclusion on the question of res judicata raised in the present appeals is this. (Where the trial court has decided two suits having common 3 issues on the merits and there are two appeals therefrom and one of them is dismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing, with the result that the trial court's decision stands confirmed, the decision of the appeal court will be res judicata and the appeal court must be deemed to have heard and finally decided the matter. In such a case the result of the decision of the appeal court is to confirm the decision of the trial court given on merits, and if that is so, the decision of the appeal court will be resjudicata whatever may be the reason for the dismissal. It would be a different matter, however, where the decision of the appeal court does not result in the confirmation of the decision of the trial court given on the merits, as for example, where the appeal court holds that the trial court had no jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal even though the trial court might have dismissed the suit on the merits.) In this view of the matter, the appeals must fail, for the trial court had in the present case decided all the four suits on the merits including,the decision on the common issues as to title. The result of the dismissal on a preliminary ground of the two appeals arising out of suits Nos. 77 and 91 was that the decision of the trial court was confirmed with respect to the common issues as to title by the High Court. In consequence the decision on those issues became resjudicata so far as appeals Nos. 365 and 366 are concerned and s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would bar the hearing of those common issues over again. It is not in dispute that if the decision on the common issues in 4 suits Nos. 77 and 91 has become res judicata, appeals Nos. 365 and 366 must fail. In addition to this, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘Shyam Sunder Sarma versus Panna Lal Jaiswal & others, reported in (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 436 has also been relied upon. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought time to address the arguments. List on 27.8.2026.” 5. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty, as aforesaid. In case, the appeal is filed within four weeks, from today, then, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 6. In view of request made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, certified copies of judgments, passed by the learned trial Court, as well as, learned First Appellate Court, are ordered to be returned to the petitioners, after retaining the photo copies of the same, on record. 7. With these observations, the present application, as well as, the accompanying petition, are disposed of. (Virender Singh) 27.8.2026 Judge Kalpana 5