1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.553 of 2024 Date of Decision : 17.12.2025 Bahadur Singh and others …… Petitioners Versus Dharmi Devi and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order dated 12.08.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, an application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, in Civil Suit No.109 of 2014, whereby the aforesaid application filed by the present petitioners/defendants for filing additional written statement has been disallowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the impugned order. 3. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the present respondents. The same decreed on 28.02.2022. Appeal against the same 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, it came to light that one Hira Singh, original defendant No.2 in the suit had died on 22.06.2019. On account of the same, judgment and decree dated 28.02.2022 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for bringing on record the legal heirs of original defendant No.2-Hira Singh. 4. Post remand of the matter to the Trial Court, an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of original defendant No.2 was allowed on 02.04.2022. In furtherance thereof, present petitioners No.4, 5 and 6 were brought on record. Subsequent thereto, they moved an application for filing an additional written statement. 5. In the said application, it was submitted that earlier the written statement had been filed by one Bahadur Singh on behalf of the defendants without consulting the defendants and hence they intended to file an additional written statement. Reply thereto was filed. Objections in the reply filed thereto primarily pertained to the application being not maintainable and being barred by law. Besides the aforesaid, it was further averred that in RSA No.409 (408) of 1998, decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.09.2010, it had been held that the present applicants/defendants/ petitioners are mortgagees in possession of Khasra No.555 & 732 (suit land). The said decision it was averred has now attained finality. Other than the aforesaid, it has been submitted that after the death of Hira Singh, his interests were duly represented by the other defendants in the suit. 6. The suit, in the case at hand, had been filed for possession of the land comprised in Kh./Kh. No.48/157 and 158, Khasra Nos.555, 732 measuring 4-11 Bighas, situated in Mauja Bella, Tehsil Shillai, District 3 Sirmaur, under Sections 5 & 6 of the H.P. Debt Reduction Act. In the said suit, deceased defendant No.2-predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners No.4 to 6 was duly represented by a counsel who had been duly authorized by an appropriate power of attorney signed by all the defendants on 07.05.2015. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the Trial Court had found no merit in the submission of the present petitioners that earlier the written statement was filed by one Bahadur Singh on behalf of the defendants without consulting them. The aforesaid sole contention raised before the Trial Court is given up/not pressed. 7. The provisions applicable, in the case at hand, are Order 22 Rule 4(2) and Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 22 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:- “4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.—(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendants to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.” 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that every party has a right to file written statement. This is in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is further contended that once having been made a party in terms of Order 22, it would be strange if the petitioners No.4 to 6 are not permitted to take a defence. In order to buttress the said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court 4 reported in 2007 (10) SCC 82 titled Sumtibai and others vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) through Mankanwar (Smt.) w/o Parasmal Chordia (dead) and others. The relevant extract is being reproduced here-in-below:- “8. Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. The appellants in the present case have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. In our opinion, Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC cannot be construed in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the respondent.” In the aforesaid case, a suit for specific performance had been filed by the respondent/plaintiff (Paras Finance Company) against one Kapoor Chand. The said Kapoor Chand had entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute to the respondent/plaintiff therein, i.e., Paras Finance Company. In the agreement to sell, it had been mentioned that the property was self acquired property of Kapoor Chand. However, on perusal of the registered sale deed, on the basis of which, title to the suit property was being claimed by Kapoor Chand, the property had been sold to Kapoor Chand and his sons. Being co-owners and legal representatives, on the death of Kapoor Chand, his sons were impleaded as party. The Apex Court was of the view that being co-owners the sons of deceased Kapoor Chand had a right to take this defence. 9. The aforesaid provision also came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee vs. Sri Kishan (1972) 2 SCC 461. Relevant extract whereof reads as under:- 5 “Under sub-clause (ii) of Rule 4 of Order 22 Civil Procedure Code any person so made a party as a legal representative of the deceased respondent was entitled to make any defence appropriate his character as legal representative of the deceased respondent. In other words, the heirs and the legal representatives could urge all contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which were personal to the deceased. Indeed this does not prevent the legal representatives from setting up also their own independent title, in which case there could be no objection to the court impleading them not merely as the legal representatives of the deceased but also in their personal capacity avoiding. thereby a separate suit for a decision on the independent title.” 10. In the case at hand, petitioners No.4 to 6 have been brought on record as legal representatives of deceased Hira Singh and not in their own capacity. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the newly arrayed defendants before the Trial Court, i.e., petitioners No.4 to 6 could not point out any contention which could have been urged by deceased defendant No.2 but had not been urged in the case at hand, thereby necessitating the filing of an additional written statement. Besides the aforesaid, the counsel could not point out any new plea which was required to be raised by the newly arrayed defendants before the Trial Court/petitioners No.4 to 6 before this Court in their own independent capacity. In the aforesaid backdrop, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sumtibai’s case (supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 11. Besides the aforesaid, the application has been filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same reads as follows:- “9. Subsequent pleadings.—No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court 6 may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.” 12. The same deals with filing of an additional written statement. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the case reported in AIR 1958 Madras 383 titled as Nanjan vs. Selai and others. The relevant extract whereof reads as follows:- “If the party wants to file an additional written statement, he has to file a petition stating the reason why he failed to say these things in the original written statement, and what excuse there is for allowing him to file an additional written statement at that stage. Then the other side has to be given an opportunity to oppose the petition and contend that such additional written statement should not be entertained at that stage. Then the Court has to give its decision as to whether the additional written statement is to be admitted or not.” 13. In the case at hand, no reason has been cited in the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, as to why an opportunity be afforded to the legal representatives of deceased original defendant No.2 for filing an additional written statement. As already stated supra, the sole plea raised in the application which was rejected by the Trial Court has been given up. 14. In view of above, present petition is dismissed, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 15. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 04.01.2026. (Bipin Chander Negi) December 17, 2025 (KS) Judge