2025:HHC:29079 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 274 of 2025 Decided on : 28.08.2025 Gian Chand. …Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Shimla. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “a) The petition may kindly be allowed and impugned Judgment dated 26-04 2025 may be ordered to quashed and set-aside passed by the Ld. appellate court (ADJ CBI COURT, SHIMLA) in appeal RBT No. 11 -S/14 of 2024 titled Sh. Gian Chand Chauhan v/s M.C. Shimla filed against case No 2809/AP/2014 titled M.C. Shimla v/s Sh. Gian Singh Chauhan in the interest Justice and also in the facts and circumstances of the case in question.” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29079 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire action which was initiated against the respondent, is vitiated for the reason that despite the fact that there was no lawful service of the Court notice upon the petitioner for 04.01.2020, yet he was proceeded against exparte by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla on 04.01.2020 and this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated in its correct perspective, either by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, while passing order dated 06.05.2023 or by the learned Appellate Authority while passing judgment dated 26.04.2025. 3. In order to ascertain as to whether there is merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel, this Court had directed that the original record of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner be produced. The original record is available for the perusal of the Court. In terms of the record, before 04.01.2020, i.e. the date on which the petitioner was proceeded against exparte, the case was listed on 26.10.2019. On the said date, the following order was passed:- “26.10.2019 3 2025:HHC:29079 Due to Preoccupation of working Commissioner in other official work. The case is adjourned for 04.1.2020. Hearing Clerk M.C. Shimla.” 4. Thereafter, on 04.01.2020, the following order was passed by the Commissioner:- “04.01.2020 Case called. Present AP, JE for M.C. Shimla & none for the respondent Mr. Gian Singh Chauhan. As per the report of process server, the house of the respondent has found locked and the service of the summon has been effected by way of affixation in the presence of two witnesses, hence proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, it can be construed that the respondent is not interested in the proceedings of the case, hence proceeded ex-parte. JE is directed to submit latest status on next date of hearing. The case to come up for consideration on 2.5.2020.” 5. This Court in its judgment dated 16.06.2025, titled Dola Ram Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 9696 of 2025, has held as under:- “13. First of all, this court would like to make an observation that when the Presiding Officer was not available, the Reader of the Court had no authority to give 4 2025:HHC:29079 any dates and fresh summons were required to be issued to the parties for their presence. This Court in its judgment dated 14.05.2025, passed in CWP No. 6342 of 2023, titled Kuldeep Singh & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., by placing reliance upon the earlier judgment of this Court passed in Cr.MMO No. 06 of 2010, titled titled Satya Parkash Katiyal Vs. Smt. Usha Chauhan and others, decided on 23.03.2010, has held that the Reader of the Court has no power to fix the case binding the parties for their presence.” 6. Herein, as it is evident from the record that the matter was not taken up by the Authority concerned on 26.10.2019 on account of preoccupation, the matter was adjourned for 04.01.2020 by the Hearing Clerk of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which could not have been done. 7. Be that as it may, thereafter, when the case was listed on 04.01.2020, Commissioner ought to have issued fresh notice for the service of all the parties. Rather than doing this, the petitioner was proceeded against exparte on the basis of issuance of a process, on the basis of an order passed on 26.10.2019 by Hearing Clerk. 8. Not only this, on 04.01.2020, the petitioner was 5 2025:HHC:29079 proceeded against exparte party by returning the findings that as per the report of the Process Server, the house of the respondent was found locked and the service of summon was effected by way of affixation in presence of two witnesses and as petitioner, thereafter also, did not appear, hence exparte. 9. A perusal of the notice, photocopy of which is also on record as Annexure P-2, demonstrates that the report of the Process Server on the said notice was that there was lock at the residence of Gian Chand Chauhan and that he affixed the notice in presence of two witnesses. These two witnesses, as mentioned in the notice, are Roop Chand and Molak Ram. There is no parentage or address of the said two witnesses given. Thus, there is nothing to ascertain as to whether there was any affixation of the notice in the presence of the said two witnesses or not. 10. Otherwise also, in the absence of there being an order of affixation passed by the competent Authority for the service of the petitioner by way of affixation, the notice could not have been served upon the petitioner by way of affixation. All this renders order dated 04.01.2020, in terms whereof the 6 2025:HHC:29079 petitioner was proceeded against exparte, as bad in law. Therefore, in view of this fact, obviously, the exparte order passed by the respondent was void ab-initio of issue and the judgment passed in Appeal by the learned District Judge, while exercising the appellate power, can also not be sustained in law. The Court is making these observations for the reason that during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent could not demonstrate that what the Court has observed and recorded in the order, is contrary to the record. 11. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, this petition is allowed. Judgment dated 26.04.2025, passed in Appeal No. RBT No.11-S/14 of 2024, titled Gian Chand Chauhan Vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla by the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, against Case No. 2809/AP/2014 titled M.C. Shimla Vs. Sh. Gian Singh Chauhan, is quashed and set aside and order dated 06.05.2023, passed by the learned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, is also quashed. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, is directed to hear the case of eviction against the petitioner afresh. Petitioner through counsel is directed to 7 2025:HHC:29079 appear before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, on 22.09.2025, on which date the Commissioner may give an effective date of hearing to the petitioner. 12. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 28, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)