2025:HHC:21824 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.43/2025 Date of Decision: 08th July, 2025. Kundan Lal and Anr. .....Petitioners Versus Divisional Manager, HP Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, whereby an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the respondents/decree holders, has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. Application for impleadment filed by the decree holder is Annexure P-2. Response thereto is appended with petition as Annexure P-3. In the application filed for impleadment, it has been categorically averred that deceased-Moti Ram (judgment debtor), had conducted two marriages, one with Smt. Naina Devi and another 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:21824 with Smt. Achhari Devi. Out of the wedlock with Smt. Naina Devi, two children were born i.e. Sh. Nanak Chand and Sh. Manmohan Lal. Similarly, out of the wedlock with Smt. Achhari Devi, Sh. Kundan Lal and Sh. Dharam Dass, were born. Smt. Achhari Devi, is stated to have died. Hence, in the application filed for impleadment, it is averred that the property of deceased-Moti Ram/judgment debtor, has devolved on his four aforementioned sons and surviving wife i.e. Smt. Naina Devi. Along with the application filed for impleadment, there were no attachments/documents appended thereto 4. In the response filed by the present petitioners i.e. Sh. Kundan Lal and Sh. Dharam Dass, born out of the wedlock of the judgment debtor-Moti Ram with Smt. Achhari Devi, it has been categorically averred that the property of Moti Ram, by virtue of Will, had been bequeathed upon the sons, born out of the wedlock with Smt. Naina Devi. Report of the Patwari and copy of mutation were attached along with the reply so filed. 3 2025:HHC:21824 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, when order dated 03.12.2024, i.e. impugned order, is viewed, it transpires that while passing the impugned order, a report of the Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Bagsaid, has been taken into account. No mention of the same was made in the application filed for impleadment by the decree holders. The same was never attached with the application filed for impleadment by the decree holders. No copy of the same was ever supplied to the present petitioners, who have been ordered to be impleaded as legal heirs of deceased-Moti Ram, vide impugned order dated 03.12.2024. A basic rule of natural justice is that a report whereupon reliance has been placed, needs to be supplied to the other side also. Non-supply of the same visits the other side with serious civil consequences. 6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, order dated 03.12.2024, is quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 23.07.2025. A copy of the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Bagsaid, 4 2025:HHC:21824 wherein reliance has been placed by the Executing Court, shall be supplied to the present petitioners i.e. legal heirs of deceased-Moti Ram, born out of the wedlock of Moti Ram with Smt. Achhari Devi. The said legal heirs, shall be afforded an opportunity to file appropriate necessary objections to the same and thereafter, the application for impleadment filed by the decree holders, in the case at hand, shall be decided afresh, as expeditiously as possible, subject to the convenience of the Court. 7. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 08th July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)