Karam Dass Vs. Ram Subhag Singh and others CMP No.10421 of 2025 in COPC No.75 of 2018 Item No.D-11 28.05.2025 Present: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. CMP No. 10421 of 2025 The present application has been filed on behalf of Sh.Raman Kanwar and Sh. Aman Kanwar sons of Sh.Rameshwar Singh seeking recall of order dated 31.12.2018 in the main case. 2. The perusal of the application would go on to show that on the strength of a Will executed by late Sh. Kanwar Singh, the locus standi of the said applicants as such has been put forth seeking recall of the said order. The categorical case as such is that Kanwar Singh was not a party in the proceedings earlier and the authorities as such are taking action. 3. Reference is also made to Writ petition Nos.2423 to 2426 of 2018 and interim order dated 01.11.2018 (Annexures A-8 & A-9), whereby interim orders allegedly were passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest Kanwar Singh, who is stated to have died on 07.02.2024 and has left a Will (Annexure A-12) in favour of the present applicants, who are his grand children regarding the property in dispute. 2 4. The counsel for the applicants has pointed out from the main order dated 31.12.2018 that the factum of recovery of the benefits to be derived from Kanwar Singh had been mentioned in the said order. 5. We have also perused the earlier order passed by this Court in CWP No.1213 of 2017 titled as Karam Dass Vs. State of H.P. & Others, whereby directions were issued to consider the request of the said petitioner and to decide the same after giving opportunity to all concerned vide order dated 12.06.2017. 6. We are informed that the Contempt petition also arose as a sequel to the said directions issued. Thus, the case of the applicants is that neither Kanwar Singh was party in the present petition nor in the Contempt Petition and therefore, it is necessary to revive the said petition. 7. Apparently, a reference has been made to the representation dated 10.10.2011 to the authorities, which has now been appended as Annexure A-3, to show that the name of Kanwar Singh had been mentioned, by the petitioner. 8. It is also to be noticed that on earlier occasion Kanwar Singh himself filed CMP No.5684 of 2019 seeking recall of order dated 31.12.2018 on the same grounds that he was not impleaded as such. Reference to interim orders dated 01.11.2018 passed in CWP Nos.2423 to 2426 of 2018, whereby status quo orders were passed, had been made that he had come to know about the said orders when his son was in the office of the SDO (Civil) and a team has been constituted for 3 implementation of the order. During pendency of the said application, which was filed on 21.05.2019, Kanwar Singh died on 07.02.2024 and therefore on 13.08.2024, CMP No.5684 of 2019 was disposed of with observations that neither the applicant was party in the main writ petition nor in the contempt proceedings and the fact that he had died therefore the application had lost its efficacy. 9. The application filed by the present applicants bearing CMP No.3236 of 2025 in the disposed of case, was withdrawn on 24.03.2025, on account of fact that the present application C.M.P No. 10421 of 2025 has been filed for impleadment and modification of the order dated 31.12.2018. 10. From the sequence of events, it is apparent that the matter was disposed of long back on 31.12.2018 and the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants was not a party though a reference in the COPC has been made by the Coordinate Bench qua him. 11. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that it is open for the applicants to seek their redressal in accordance with law and put forth this aspect before the concerned authority as to whether the said order as such can be used against them in the absence of any notice having been issued and not giving opportunity to file reply to them in the said proceedings. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose as such will be served in opening this set of proceedings, at least keeping in view the fact that the 4 applicants have a legal right as such to put forth their case on the ground that they were never heard on that account and whether this order as such can be binding against them or not ? 13. Needless to add that we are not commenting on the merits of the case in any manner. The applicants are at liberty to seek redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. 14. The application stands disposed of. CMP No.10425 of 2025 15. In view of order passed in CMP No.10421 of 2025, the present application has become infructuous. Disposed of as such. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 28th May, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge