IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO Nos. 362 of 2024 and 364 of 2024 Date of decision: 17.07.2025 FAO No. 362 of 2024 Kuldeep Singh and Ors. …Petitioners Versus Ramesh Kumar and Ors. …Respondents. FAO No. 364 of 2024 Kuldeep Singh and Ors. …Petitioners Versus Ramesh Kumar and Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rohit, Advocate vice Mr. No. 1 to 3 Sumit Sood, Advocate Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) These appeals have been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against common judgment and decree No.10 of 2024 CS(151/2024) dated 15.10.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr, H.P in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2022 (CIS Filing No. 823/2022) titled Kuldeep Singh and ors. Vs Ramesh Kumar and ors; and Cross objections No. 10 of 2024(SIS No. 151 of 2024), whereby accepting the appeal and cross objections, matter has been remitted back to the Trial Court for deciding afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity to the contesting plaintiffs and the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs to take steps for bringing them on record, if permissible under the law, and Trial Court has been directed to proceed to decide effect of the death of the party and question of substitution of legal representative of such party. 2. During hearing the matters, the main grievance of the appellants appears to be that observations of Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr, that appeal was allowed and cross objections were allowed in final order passed by Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. allowing the appeal as well as cross objections would be creating confusion regarding observations passed by Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr for consideration of merits of the objections and acceptance thereof by First Appellant Court i.e Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., because in the final order it has been stated that appeal and cross objections are allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that after receiving the matter by the Trial Court in furtherance to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr, H.P, the Trial Court has to decide the issues involved in the matter including the issues raised in the appeal as well as cross objections and also with respect to the question of abatement or right of the parties to be arrayed in substitution of parties on account of death of such parties are to be decided afresh by Trial Court on its own merits on the basis of material based on it and to prove it in accordance with law. 4. In impugned order passed in appeals, passed by the Addition District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., it has been stated that appeal as well as cross objections are allowed, which gives impression that adjudication of Cross objections has been done by Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr, H.P and Trial Court is bound to uphold Cross objections. It has been submitted that appellants shall be satisfied if it is clarified that Trial Court shall decide all issues contentions afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in impugned judgment stating that Cross objections have been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that appeals may be disposed of with necessary clarifications. 6. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of with clarification that Trial Court shall consider the merits of all contentions of the parties including issues raised in Cross objections afresh in accordance with law. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) July, 17,2025(gm) Judge