1 ( 2025:HHC:17620 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.283 of 2025 Date of Decision : 04.06.2025 Siri Ram …… Petitioner Versus Rikhi Ram and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against impugned order dated 05.09.2024, whereby, an application under Order 32 Rule 16(2) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the present petition, has been dismissed. 2. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to mention that the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:17620 ) justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition and the impugned order. 4. Respondent No.1, in the case at hand, had filed a suit on 13.11.2002. The said suit had been filed for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction and for recovery of possession against the present petitioner and the present respondent, proforma respondents. The suit so filed was decreed vide judgment dated 17.09.2013. 5. By virtue of the decree passed, present respondent No.1 was held entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction against the present petitioner, respondent and proforma respondents qua the suit land. Further, respondent No.1 was held entitled for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land against the present petitioner, respondent and proforma respondents. 6. As a sequel to the decree passed in favour of respondent No.1, appropriate execution proceedings were initiated by respondent No.1 in January, 2014. In the execution proceedings, pending adjudication an application under Order 32 Rule 16(2) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the present petitioner claiming therein that present respondent No.7 is mentally challenged since 3 ( 2025:HHC:17620 ) birth. It was further alleged that the disability is permanent and the said respondent No.7 has not been sued through his next friend or natural guardian in the suit, therefore, the decree dated 17.09.2013 so obtained is in nullity. 7. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to mention that insofar as present petitioner and respondent No.7 are concerned, they were defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1. Their interest were common. There was no conflict inter se the present petitioner and present respondent No.7 in the suit filed by respondent No.1. Throughout the suit, respondent No.7 was duly represented by a counsel. The present petitioner was the Special Power of Attorney holder for respondent No.7. 8. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that on account of doctrine of “substantial representation”, respondent No.7 herein was effectively represented in suit by the present petitioner, who was the Special Power of Attorney holder for respondent No.7 and by a counsel. 9. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Shiv Baran Singh and others vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others, AIR 1993 All 247. The relevant extract, whereof, is being reproduced herein below:- “ 10. It is settled law that if a minor or lunatic is effectively represented and no prejudice is shown to have been caused, the absence of formal order of Court appointing guardian shall not vitiate the proceedings. In Nirmal Chandra Ray v. Khandu Ghose, AIR 1965 Cal 562, the Court observed as follows (at page 569):-- "The doctrine of substantial representation is a matter of substance and not of form, where a 4 ( 2025:HHC:17620 ) minor was effectively represented in a suit by a guardian, although not formally appointed, and suffered no prejudice on account of the informality, the absence of a formal order of appointment of guardian is not fatal to the suit." 11. This principle has been consistently followed in Rani Rekha v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1926 All 545, Brij Kishore Lal v. Satya Narain Lal, AIR 1954 All 599 : (1954 All LJ 443); Rangarnmal v. Appasami Raghavan, AIR 1973 Mad 12, Chatar Bhuj Goel v. Gurpreet Singh, AIR 1983 Punj & Har 406.” 10. Other than the aforesaid, in the case at hand, no prejudice has been alleged to have been caused to respondent No.7. 11. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) June 04, 2025 (KS) Judge