Narinder Kumar & ors. Vs. Rikhi Ram (since deceased), through LRs a/w connected matter. CMP No. 13179 of 2023 a/w RSA No. 471 of 2005 CMP No. 13179 of 2023 1.6.2026 Present: Mr Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a), 1(c), 2(a) to 2(c), 3(a) to 3(c) 4, 5, 7(a) to 7(e). RSA No. 471 of 2023 Mr Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a), 1(c), 3(a) to 3(c) and 4 to 6. CMP No. 13179 of 2023 The applicants have filed the present application for seeking leave to file the appeal, as Rajender Kumar, the original party, has died after the pronouncement of judgment and decree by the learned First Appellate Court. It has been asserted that Narinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar had filed a civil suit titled Narinder Kumar and another Vs. Chet Ram. The defendant Chet Ram and another had filed the counterclaim titled Narinder Kumar Vs. Chet Ram. The plaintiff's suit and the defendants’ counterclaim were dismissed. Two appeals were preferred against a common judgment before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. The appellant filed an appeal before this Court, which was registered as RSA No. 471 of 2005 assailing judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court. The appeal came up for hearing on 10.8.2023, and an objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondent that one appeal is not maintainable and two appeals should have been preferred. Earlier, an appeal was being filed against the common judgment, and a single appeal was filed in the present case, relying upon the prevalent practice. Now the applicants want to file another appeal, but the appellant No.2, Rajinder Kumar, has died. Heirs of Rikhi Ram, respondent No.1, heirs of Het Ram, respondent No.3 and heirs of Ram Chander, respondent No.7 are required to be impleaded. Hence the application. 2. Application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that two appeals were preferred before the learned Appellate Court and two appeals were required to be preferred before this Court in terms of the judgment in RSA No. 57 of 2017, titled Ramesh Chand Vs. Om Lal and others. This judgment was delivered on 17.2.2022, and it took more than one and a half years to move the present application. The appeal cannot be entertained after an unexplained delay of more than 18 years. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1(a), 1(c), 2(a) to 2(c), 3(a) to 3(c), 4, 5, 7(a) to 7(e). 4. Mr Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the legal heirs of the party cannot prefer an appeal without obtaining leave under Chapter 7, Rules 1 and 2; therefore, it has become necessary to obtain the leave of the Court. The applicants have filed a separate application for condonation of delay, and the respondents have conflated two applications. The applicant only requires leave for filing an appeal, which is required under the rules. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and leave be granted to file the appeal. 5. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1(a), 1(c), 2(a) to 2(c), 3(a) to 3(c) 4, 5, 7(a) to 7(e) submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable after the lapse of 18 years from the date of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. The applicant had no sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. Chapter-7 Rule 1 CPC provides that whenever a legal representative of a person who was a party to a decree or order but has died after hearing and before the judgment or after the date of the decree or order, he would be required to present an affidavit stating such facts. Rule 2 provides that whenever a decree or order the interest of a legal representative of a deceased party to a decree or order desires to present to the High Court a memorandum of appeal, he may name himself as an appellant and file an application supported by an affidavit stating such facts. Therefore, it is apparent that the legal representative of a party cannot file an appeal without seeking leave of the Court. In the present case, the averment made in the application shows that one of the plaintiffs, Rajinder Kumar, has died; therefore, it would be necessary to seek leave from the Court for filing the appeal as per the rules. Further, respondents No.1, 3 and 7 have died as per the application, and it is necessary to mention their legal representatives’ names as respondents. The maintainability of the appeal or the bar of limitation is not to be seen at this stage. The only question is whether one of the plaintiffs has died. Since it is not disputed that Rajinder Singh has died and the applicants are the legal representatives of Rajinder Singh, they are entitled to prefer an appeal after seeking leave of the Court. 8. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the applicants are permitted to file an appeal as the legal representatives and by mentioning the legal heirs of respondents Nos 1, 3 and 7 as parties. It is expressly made clear that the grant of leave will not have any effect on the merits of the case or the application for condonation of delay. 9. The present application stands disposed of. RSA No. 471 of 2005 10. Be listed for an admission hearing before the appropriate Bench having a roster. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st June, 2026 (Chander)