2025:HHC:23976 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 111 of 2022 a/w Civil Revision No.105 of 2022 Date of Decision: 23.07.2025 1. Civil Revision No.111 of 2012 Uttam Chand (deceased) through LRs and Ors. .....Petitioners. Versus Anil Kumar and Others …..Respondents. 2. Civil Revision No.105 of 2022 Uttam Chand (deceased) through LRs and Ors. .....Petitioners. Versus Anil Kumar and Others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 2. The present petitioners were the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs had filed the suit, claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land as owners. A challenge in the suit filed by the present petitioners was to the entry in the revenue record showing Sh. Gulaba i.e. predecessor in interest of the present petitioners/defendants, before the learned trial Court, as a tenant. Insofar as, present respondents are concerned, they were the defendants before 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:23976 the trial Court. They had filed a counter-claim to the suit filed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs, claiming themselves to be occupancy tenants over the suit land, on payment of rent and by virtue of operation of law, they claimed to have become owners. 3. The trial Court after a protracted trial, returned the plaint and the counter-claim, vide judgment dated 30.12.2017. The trial Court was of the view that Civil Court, in the case at hand, had no jurisdiction qua the issues being raised by the parties in the plaint and the counter-claim. In view thereof, vide judgment dated 30.12.2017, passed by the learned trial Court, both the plaint and the counter-claim were returned to the parties, to be presented before the competent Court of law. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.12.2017, passed by the learned trial Court, the present petitioners had preferred one composite appeal before the First Appellate Court, under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC. The present respondents also preferred cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC. 5. The First Appellate Court was of the view that one composite appeal, in the case at hand, preferred by the present petitioners was not maintainable. In view thereof, the appeal preferred by the present petitioners was dismissed, vide judgment dated 04.03.2022. The appeal before the First Appellate Court was solely dismissed on this ground alone. The merits of the matter were not at all touched. 3 2025:HHC:23976 6. Before this Court, two petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2022, passed by the First Appellate Court. The composite appeal before the First Appellate Court was well within the period of limitation. The defect qua filing one appeal as against two separate appeals was never brought to the notice of the present petitioners by the learned First Appellate Court. 7. Qua filing of one composite appeal, where two appeals should have been preferred, it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in SLP(C) D.No.59467 of 2024, titled Charan Singh Vs. Ram Saroop, decided on 03.02.2025. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7. In our considered view, reliance was rightly placed by the first appellate court on precedents to hold that a composite appeal was not maintainable in law but, at the same time, the first appellate court ought to have borne in mind that courts exist for rendering justice albeit in accordance with law. Once the first appellate court found, correctly, that challenge to the common judgment of the trial court dated 16th March, 2021 had been laid in a composite appeal but it is the requirement of law to file two appeals with separate memoranda of appeal, which had not been filed by the appellant, the court ought to have at least alerted the appellant by making him aware of the requirement of law and giving him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of 4 2025:HHC:23976 appeal. In fact, in terms of Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, the appellate court has the power to even dispense with the requirement of law of filing copy of the impugned judgment twice over if it is part of the memorandum of appeal already filed. In any event, the defect was not such that it was incurable. The composite appeal was filed well within the period of limitation and, except for the fact that a separate memorandum of appeal was not filed, no other defect, far less serious defect, was shown to exist. If even after being alerted the appellant had failed to file a separate memorandum, the first appellate court would have been perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal. It is not shown to us that any such endeavour was made. 8. The first appellate court having failed to alert the appellant, we would have expected the High Court to intervene to set right the wrong by its interdiction. Technicality of a nature such as this should not have been allowed to prevail over substantive justice. The appellant had filed two second appeals before the High Court, meaning thereby that he had been properly advised while such advice might have been missing in the district of which the parties are residents. Unfortunately, the High Court did not address the point from the proper perspective either. While spurning the objection of learned counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently argued that there is no occasion to interfere since the appellant did not adhere to the law, we find good reason and ground to interfere. 5 2025:HHC:23976 9. For the ends of justice, we set aside the impugned second appellate judgment and decree of the High Court together with the first appellate judgment and decree. This would result in revival of the first appeal on the file of the first appellate court. We grant liberty to the appellant to file a separate memorandum of appeal, without certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree, within three weeks from date. Once it is filed, the same shall be registered without limitation being treated as a bar. Should there be a default, the appellant shall lose the benefit of this order.” 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2022, is quashed and set aside. 9. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to hereinabove, liberty is accorded to the present petitioners to file a separate memorandum of appeal without a certified copy of the impugned judgment within two weeks from today. Once it is filed, the same shall be registered without limitation being treated as a bar. Should there be a default, the petitioner would lose the benefit of this judgment. 11. In case of filing of such a memorandum of appeal, the First Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal afresh on merits. All contentions on merits are left open to be urged and decided by the First Appellate Court. Parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 30.07.2025. 6 2025:HHC:23976 In view of the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 23rd July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)