2025:HHC:23315 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.602 of 2022 Decided on: 18.07.2025 Vinod Kumar … Petitioner Versus Yash Pal & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Chandel, Advocate, for proposed LRs of respondent No.1, i.e. 1(a) to 1 (c). None for remaining respondents. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28.10.2022, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.III, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “Therefore, in the present case Advocate Subhash Thakur is appointed as Court Guardian of defendant no.4, and it is further directed that costs of this suit incurred by the Guardian shall be paid by defendant no.3. For the purposes of securing reimbursement of costs and other expenses which may be incurred by the Court Guardian in the present case, defendant no. 3 is directed to еxеcute a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- along with one surely of like amount Application stands disposed of. It be tagged with the main case file.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limited grievance of the petitioner, who is defendant No.3 before 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23315 learned Trial Court, is that though the Court Guardian was appointed on the application that was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, yet it is the petitioner who has been burdened with the costs thereof, in terms of the order passed by learned Trial Court. He further submits that as the application was filed by the plaintiff, the directions, if any, ought to have been passed against the plaintiff and not against defendant No.3. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the LRs of respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that as it is defendant No.3, who is enjoying the property of defendant No.4, it is in these circumstances, that the Court has passed the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order in issue, this Court is of the considered view that as the Court Guardian was appointed by learned Trial Court on the application filed by the plaintiff, the costs thereof at the first instance, ought to have been ordered to be born by the plaintiff, subject to final outcome of the Civil Suit. It could not have been directed to be born by defendant No.3 at the first instance, as has been ordered by the learned Trial Court. To this extent the order passed by learned Trial Court is bad. 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by modifying order dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure P-6), to the extent that whatever directions have been passed therein with regard to the costs factor vis-a-vis the appointment of the Court Guardian etc., against defendant No.3, shall be read to have been passed against the 3 2025:HHC:23315 plaintiff, but of course it will be subject to the final decision of the Civil Suit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 18, 2025 (Rishi)