2025:HHC:28860 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.387 of 2017 Decided on: 26.08.2025 Sh. Ram Rattan & others … Petitioners Versus Smt. Asha Devi & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 02.08.2017, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 22, Rule 4 and Order 22, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code alongwith an application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to bring on record legal representatives of defendants No.9, 10 and 14 and to condone the delay was allowed. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the original record which is available in the Court as well as the documents appended with the petition, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is per se perverse. 3. In terms of the application that was filed under Order 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28860 22, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, prayer was made to substitute the legal representatives of deceased-defendants No.9,10 and 14. It was not mentioned in the application when did the defendants died. It was averred in Para-2 of the application that it was during the pendency of the suit that on 21.04.2015, the defendants disclosed in the Court that defendants No.9,10 and 14 were dead. On these basis, it was further averred in Para-7 of the application that the application was being filed within limitation as from the date of knowledge. Now incidently, in Para-2 the date of knowledge is stated to be 21.04.2015. The application is drafted on 18.08.2025, i.e. beyond 90 days as from the said alleged date of information. However, this date of information which is mentioned in Para-2 of the petition is not only incorrect, but infact, a false averment has been made by the applicants in this para of the application. This is for the reason that a perusal of the order that was passed by this Court in CMPMO No.17 of 2013, titled Asha and others Versus Narain Dass and others, decided on 05.06.2014, demonstrates that while deciding this petition which was filed by the plaintiffs in this Court observed that Durga Ram (defendant No.10 had expired on 14.12.2012. Thus, when it was recorded by this Court in its order passed on 05.06.2014, that too in the petition that was filed by the plaintiffs that Durga Ram had expired on 14.12.2012, it is not understood as to how the applicants could have said in the application filed under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Civil 3 2025:HHC:28860 Procedure Code that the factum of the death of defendants including defendant No.10 was not in their knowledge upto 21.04.2015. This demonstrates that the applicants did not approach the Court with clean hands and a concocted version was portrayed before the Court to justify delay. 4. In fact, as already observed hereinabove, the date of death of other defendants was not mention in the application, but the same finds mentioned in the reply that was filed to the application and in terms of the said reply, whereas defendant No.9 died on 08.11.2013, defendant No.14 died as far back as on 05.12.2008. 5. Though, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that such applications have to be decided by the Court by adopting a lenient attitude, but then the party has to approach the Court with clean hands. In case there is delay in bringing on record legal representatives of the deceased party and the applicants can demonstrate that the knowledge of the death of the party was not in its knowledge, then obviously the things have to be perceived by the Court from that angle while taking a call as to whether the application is to be allowed or not. But, wherein the parties tries to make false assertions in the application as has been done in the present case, then no leniency can be shown to them. 6. Perusal of impugned order demonstrates these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the learned 4 2025:HHC:28860 Court below at all. Had the learned Court below applied its judicial mind and had it cared to go through the order that was passed by this Court in CMPMO, in terms whereof, the matter was remanded back to the learned Trial Court to bring on record legal representatives of the deceased parties, obviously the falsity of the plaintiffs would have been gauged by the learned Trial Court. 7. Therefore, as observed hereinabove, as this Court is convinced that the impugned order in fact is perverse, this petition is allowed and impugned 02.08.2017, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 22, Rule 4 and Order 22, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code alongwith an application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to bring on record legal representatives of defendants No.9, 10 and 14 and to condone the delay was allowed, is quashed and set aside. Consequences to ensue. Record be returned back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 26, 2025 (Rishi)