Union of India Vs Hetu and anr. CMP(M) No.980 of 2022 2.5.2025 Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, Standing Counsel, for the applicant. Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(c), 1d(i) to 1d(iv), 1(e) to 1(g). Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1(h)-Banti Devi stands deleted. CMP No.3725 of 2023 This application has been filed for substitution of deceased respondent No. 1 Hetu, who has expired on 23.11.2014, through his legal heirs. Learned counsel for the applicant-Union of India submits that this application was intended to be filed under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC. However by ministerial mistake, which could not be rectified due to oversight, it has been stated to have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. He prays for considering this application under provisions of order 22 Rule 4, CPC, as deceased respondent No.1 Hetu was not unnecessarily joined but he was necessary party and, therefore, he is not to be deleted but substituted under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC by invoking provisions of Order 22 Rule 4, CPC. Considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for Union of India, the application is considered with reference to the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4, CPC. Copies of death certificate and legal heirs certificates of deceased Hetu have been placed on record. Proposed Legal Heir 1(d) Dhalu Ram has expired and his LRs have already been brought on record as Legal Heirs No.1(d)(i) to 1(d)(v) and proposed Legal Heir 1(h) Banti has been deleted, vide order dated 8.11.2024. Therefore, proposed Legal Heirs of deceased respondent No.1 Hetu are brought on record as respondents No.1(a) Bhole Ram, 1(b) Dinesh alias Roki, Amara Devi 1(c), Bhamesru Devi 1(d)(i), Bhimi Ram 1(d)(ii), Bimla Devi 1(d)(iii), Sunita Devi 1(d)(iv), Bharti 1(d)(v), Jawalu Ram 1(e), Dodi Devi 1(f) and Gora Devi 1(g), after condonation of delay and setting aside abatement, if any. Necessary correction in the memo of parties be carried out. The application is allowed and disposed of. CMP(M) No.980 of 2022 All the contesting respondents are duly represented. For the reasons stated in the application and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned. Review Petition be registered. The application is allowed and disposed of. Review Petition No.24 of 2025 and RFA No.309 of 2007 Vide separate order of even date, placed on the file, the Review Petition stands allowed and disposed of, and judgment dated 25.6.2018 passed in RFA No.309 of 2007 titled as Union of India Vs Hetu and others has been recalled and the appeal (RFA No.309 of 2007) has been restored to its original status with original number. Consequently, vide even dated order, RFA No.309 of 2007 also stands disposed of. Copy of this order be placed on the file of RFA No.309 of 2007. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge May 2, 2025 (mamta)