2025:HHC:37526 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 308 of 2024 Decided on: 07.11.2025 Jagmohan Khanduja … Petitioner Versus Latif Mohd. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. : None for respondents No. 3 and 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P4) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the application under 0order IX rule four CPC, for restoring of the appeal, may kindly be allowed.” 2. In terms of the impugned order, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for recalling the order, in terms whereof, the appeal was dismissed in default, has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court by returning the following findings:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:37526 “However, in this case it is worth noting that few of the parties are not contesting the present application. In this case, if we see the original petition and the applicant Latif Mohd. has already died who was representing Smt. Bashiri the daughter of Bashiri named as Gafuri who is reflected in Sr. No. 19 has been served through publication but Yasin and Anwar, who had died when the main appeal was filed coupled with application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, has not been made party in the present case and application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC was withdrawn and permission was sought to file fresh application, but no such application has been filed. Though, the order dated 09.04.2019 reflects this desire no further application was filed allowing this application is not possible as all the parties who were present in the main petition for which the application u/o 9 Rule 4 CPC was filed are not made party to this application, the court cannot allow such defective application, because the persons who had received the decree either in their favour or against have the knowledge that their case has been settled. 13. This application is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties, because an appeal cannot be maintainable against few of the parties and not against the remaining one. So, goes the view that the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act is to be decided. Thus, I am of the considered opinion, the application u/s 5 of Limitation At is not maintainable, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. FINAL ORDER 14. Thus, for the reasons above, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is dismissed. Application is accordingly disposed of. It after due completion be tagged with the main appeal file and main case file after due completion be consigned to the record room.” 3. Though, learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly 3 2025:HHC:37526 urged that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the ground that reasoning given in the impugned order does not justify the rejection of the application, however, this Court does not concur with submission of learned Counsel. A perusal of the relevant paras of the order, as quoted by me hereinabove, demonstrates that due opportunity was given to the petitioner by the learned Court below to rectify the defects in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, however, needful has not been done by the party concerned, i.e. by the petitioner. In light of this, obviously, as the order passed by learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any vice, the same calls for no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has suffered the order in issue on account of his own conduct. 4. That being the case and further in light of the fact that what is stated in para 12 to 14 of the impugned order, is clearly borne out from the record of the case, as there is no perversity in the impugned order, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge Noevember 07, 2025 (narender)