2025:HHC:12059 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.678/2024 Date of Decision: 01st May, 2025. Himachli & Others. .....Petitioners Versus Ganga Devi (Deceased) through LRs. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, HP in CMA No.1127 of 2024, wherein, an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC by the present petitioner had been dismissed 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the same. 3. Order 22 Rule 1 of the CPC says that "the death of plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives". Rule 2 of the CPC says that in case of multiple plaintiffs or defendants, if any of them dies and where the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs/defendants, the Court shall cause an entry to that effect and shall proceed with the suit. Under Rule 4 of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:12059 CPC, if the right does not survive against the surviving defendants alone, on an application made, the Court shall cause the legal representative substituted and shall proceed with the suit. 4. Vide order dated 09.11.2020, passed by this Court in Civil Suit No.42 of 2018, titled Ganga Devi Vs. Himachali & Ors., in an application under Order 22 CPC, the legal heir of deceased-Ganga Devi had been ordered to be brought on record. The relevant extract of the order is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “Brij Nandan Behl is permitted to be brought on record as legal representative of deceased plaintiff Ganga Devi for the purpose of continuation of the suit without devolving any right upon him with respect to inheritance of property of deceased plaintiff Ganga Devi at this stage, which is to be determined on its own merit separately, in case such occasion arises.” 5. The aforesaid order was never assailed, insofar as it permitted Brij Nandan Lal Behl to continue the suit. 6. Vide Annexure P-4 appended along with the petition, an application dated 17.09.2024 was filed before the trial Court, wherein the right of Brij Nandan Behl to sue/pursue with the suit was assailed. As has been stated supra, whether the right to sue survives, in the case at hand, in favour of Brij Nandan Behl stood answered in terms of order dated 09.11.2020, when an application 3 2025:HHC:12059 under Order 22 CPC was allowed and Brij Nandan Behl was permitted to carry on with the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff. Since the order dated 09.11.2020 was never assailed, an indirect impermissible challenge of the same by way of the present application is a devious tactic aimed at delaying the adjudication of the main matter. 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the application dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) being frivolous should not have been entertained. Hence impugned order dated 03.10.2024 does not call for any interference. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 01st May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)