2025:HHC:34733 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.524 of 2022 Decided on: 13.10.2025 M/s Maha Laxmi Van Vanaspati Udyog … Petitioner Versus Pramod Kumar & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Respondents ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated12.01.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court in CMA CIS Registration No.1287 of 2021, in terms whereof, the application filed by it under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased-sole defendant has been dismissed. 2. As despite service, the respondents did not appear before the Court, they stand proceeded against ex parte in terms of the order passed by this Court on 16.05.2023. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner apprised the Court that in this case the suit was filed in the year 2011. The sole defendant died in the year 2014, but this fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34733 though, in terms of the application that was filed under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, it stands averred therein that the factum of the death of the sole defendant was disclosed by the learned Counsel representing him on 08.05.2018, but this fact was disclosed, as is recorded in the orders of the Court on 03.05.2018. He submitted that thereafter, the application was filed on 05.11.2018 and in terms of the order under challenge, the same stands dismissed on the ground that the same was not filed within the period of limitation. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in light of the fact that the suit was for recovery of substantive amount, learned Trial Court should have had adopted a lenient view in the matter and should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to move an appropriate application seeking therein condonation of delay in filing the application to bring on record the legal representatives of sole defendant as well as to seek the setting aside of the abatement, if any. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that extremely hyper technical attitude was adopted by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned order be quashed. 4. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that though it is a matter of record that when the application was filed by the present petitioner to bring on record legal representatives of deceased sole defendant, the same was 3 2025:HHC:34733 beyond the period of limitation and was not accompanied by any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or with a prayer for setting aside abatement. However, in light of the fact that the factum of the death was disclosed on 03.05.2018 and the application was filed in the month of November, 2018, the delay in filing the application was not all that considerable as from the date of information. 5. In terms of the provisions of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, the legal representatives of deceased defendant were to be brought on record within a period of 90 days as from the date of the death of said defendant. In the present case, it is a matter of record that the factum of the death of the defendant was placed on record by the learned Counsel representing him only on 03.05.2018, though the sole defendant had died in the year 2014. It is also borne out from the record that despite defendant having died in the year 2014, learned Counsel engaged by him continued to represent him in the Court without disclosing the factum of his death. This extremely important aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application. 6. Even if, the application filed by the petitioner was not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, learned Trial Court could have given an opportunity to the petitioner to do the needful and had the petitioner failed to do so 4 2025:HHC:34733 even after the grant of such opportunity, then appropriate orders could have been passed by the learned Trial Court. But, not giving any opportunity in this regard, appears to be a slightly hyper technical attitude that was adopted by the learned Trial Court without appreciating as to what all would be the result of the non grant of an opportunity to the petitioner to file an application to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant. 7. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.01.2022 (Annexure P-3) is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code is ordered to be restored to its original number. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court below on 10.11.2025. On the said date, an opportunity shall be granted by the learned Trial Court to the present petitioner to file an application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant. Thereafter, notices be issued to proposed legal representatives and after hearing the parties, appropriate orders be passed in the matter. 8. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 13, 2025 (Rishi)