( 2025:HHC:20576 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.11 of 2007 Decided on: 27th June, 2025 __________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus Krishani and others and others ...Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for LR 1(c). G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present order shall dispose of the Revision filed against the order dated 21.12.2006, passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Misc.Petition No. 194 of 2006, whereby he refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal preferred by the LRs of one of the defendants namely Anant Ram. 2. The reason which weighed to the District Judge to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - dismiss the application primarily was that after taking into account the evidence on record in an earlier round of litigation, Anant Ram had never preferred any Appeal against the judgment and decree; and his brother/defendant Keshva Nand had preferred an Appeal; and the matter had been remanded as such and, therefore, he was not a contesting defendant as such in the earlier round of litigation. It was also noticed that the suit had been pending in the trial Court since the year 1992 and therefore, it cannot be expected that the applicants were not aware of the pendency of the case for the last more than 12 years and they being the adult members of the family must have known about the pendency of the case. Therefore not having adequate evidence to show that they were not aware of the pendency of the case the view was taken that the explanation has to be given for day to day basis. Resultantly, the application was dismissed against which the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. Senior counsel appearing for the applicants has vehemently submitted that admittedly the father of the petitioners i.e. Anant Ram had expired on 20.04.2005, just two months after the suit had been decreed on 28.02.2025 - 3 - and the learned District Judge was not correct as such in dismissing the application and a lenient view should have been taken. A reference is also made to the evidence as such, wherein it has come on record that two of the sons as such were serving in Rajasthan and Kinnaur and mother was 65 years old and the uncles were staying separately. It is thus contended that the delay should have been condoned and the learned District Judge’s order suffers from illegality and irregularity, which is liable to be interfered with by virtue of exercising revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order and submits that the brothers of Anant Ram were residents of the same village and they were living in the adjoining houses which has also come in the evidence of the applicant-Rakesh Kumar and therefore, the application has only been filed at their instance to revive a dead litigation. It was argued that the parties were well aware that the suit had been decreed on 28.02.2005 and no attempt was made to apply for the certified copy also and it was in November, 2005 when they claimed to know about it. - 4 - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Varadarajan vs.Kanakavalli and others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 598, wherein it is held that mere fact that the High Court had a different view, it would not confer jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by Subordinate Court. The tests laid down in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure would have to be satisfied to set aside the order only in case the Court had exercised jurisdiction not so vested in it or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with the material irregularity, then this court would as such have jurisdiction. 5. Having perused the record, which has been summoned as such, and having gone through the evidence, and keeping in view the fact that the suit remained pending from 6.3.1992 and had been remanded on 10.09.2004 and thereafter decided on 28.02.2005, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge in paragraph 12 are not liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Para 12 reads as under:- “12. Above all, it is to be seen that the present case was decided by the learned trial Court on 28.02.2005 and Anant Ram died on 20.04.2005. The - 5 - limitation to file the present appeal in the case against the judgment & decree dated 28.02.2005 had already come to an end on 31.03.2005. There is no explanation as to why Anant Ram did not even file an application for supply of copy of judgment and decree. The explanation furnished by the applicants that Anant Ram never disclosed that the suit was pending against him, can not be accepted as a gospel truth. The suit was pending in the trial Court since year, 1992. It cannot be expected that the present applicants were not knowing about such pendency of the case for the last more than 12 years. Had the version of the applicants that their predecessor in interest, Anant Ram was contesting the suit, the applicants being the adult members of the family must have known about the pendency of the case.” 6. It is not disputed that Anant Ram was resident of Village Balh-sina and the dispute as such was regarding the occupancy tenants of the plaintiff, and the declaration as such had been prayed for before the Court and as noticed that the matter had been pending since 1992. It is not possible to believe that in the village itself, the sons as such were not aware that they have dispute qua the litigation, whereby the tenant was exerting her rights and therefore the story as has been put up as such, was rightly disbelieved by the learned District Judge that the appellants were not aware of the pendency of the case. - 6 - 7. It is matter of the fact that Ananat Ram had expired on 20.04.2005 and the suit had been decreed almost two months earlier. They were other contesting defendants, who were his brothers namely Keshva Nand, Rama Nand and Rattan Lal apart from one Neem Chand. All the brothers as such were not only represented by a common counsel, but one of the brothers namely Rattan Lal had also engaged a separate counsel. 8. In such circumstances, it is not plausible to believe that the brothers as such, who are uncles of the applicant/appellant and living in the adjoining houses, which has come in the evidence, were not aware of the pendency of the litigation. They had chosen not to file appeal and therefore it is apparent that the applicants were only set up as such to give a lifeline to the litigation, which has become final inter-se the parties. 9. Keeping in view the above observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur does not suffer from any infirmity, which would warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and - 7 - the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending application stands disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 27th June, 2025 (priti)