2025:HHC:29954 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 47 of 2022 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Shri Ramesh Chand … Petitioner Versus Shri Chander Kant (since deceased) through Legal Representatives namely Shri Ghanshyam and others.… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. B.L. Soni, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Court below, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order 22, Rules 3 and 9, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased/ plaintiff, namely, Chander Kant, were allowed by setting aside the abatement and by condoning delay. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the impugned order as well as other documents appended alongwith the petition. He referred to the earlier application filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and stated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29954 that said application was filed without praying for setting aside the abatement despite the fact that the application was filed beyond the period of 90 days as from the date of death of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel submitted that in order to get out of this infirmity, another application was filed in the year 2021, under Order 22, Rule 3 now read with Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the facts narrated therein were completely false as it was mentioned that earlier they could not contact their Counsel for the purpose of filing the application whereas the earlier application was filed through the Counsel. Learned Counsel thus submitted that it is settled law that though procedure is hand maid of justice, yet until and unless, the party approaches the Court with clean hands, no indulgence should be shown. He submitted that in the present case, the party did not approach the Court with clean hands and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned Court below while passing the impugned order. 3. Though, learned Counsel for the respondents tried to justify the filing of the subsequent application but he could not convince the Court why there was variance in the subsequent application filed Under Order 22, Rules 3 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as compared to the earlier application when the application was being filed on behalf of the same applicant. This obviously demonstrates that either there was no application of mind 3 2025:HHC:29954 while framing the subsequent application or there was an endeavour to mislead the Court. 4. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that in terms of the impugned order, the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff have been ordered to be brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be in the interest of justice to now set aside this order and otherwise also, the petitioner can be compensated by imposing higher costs upon the respondents herein as compared to that imposed by learned Court below. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of without disturbing the impugned order but by ordering that the cost in lieu of the said applications being allowed is modified from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5000/-. Let cost be definitely paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants within a period of six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (narender)