2025:HHC:31713 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 179 of 2020 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Roshan Lal … Petitioner Versus Subhash Chand and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Though, as per report of the Registry, respondent No. 1 could not be served for want of correct address, however, learned Counsel was heard to ascertain the merit of the petition. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Court dated 02.09.2019, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of the Civil Procedure by the plaintiff to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased- defendant No. 1–Ram Singh, has been allowed but the petitioner has not been impleaded as Legal Representative of the deceased. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. After the death of defendant No. 1, his legal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31713 representatives, i.e. his wife, son and daughters, have been brought on record. 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the impugned order is bad for the reason that the learned Court below has erred in not appreciating that the petitioner was also the legal representative of the deceased-Ram Singh, in the considered opinion of the Court, has no merit. The factum of the alleged Will executed by Ram Singh in favour of the present petitioner, obviously, cannot be decided by this Court. In light of the fact that in the civil suit, the plaintiff therein has challenged the sale transaction conducted by the deceased-Ram Singh with the petitioner herein, obviously, in the facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be said to be a legal representative of deceased-Ram Singh. Otherwise also, if there is any ‘Will’ in favour of the petitioner of Sh. Ram Singh, he can have the same proved in accordance with law. But in the facts of this case, there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Court below, as the legal representatives who ought to have been impleaded, have been correctly impleaded as the legal representatives of Ram Singh and the petitioner cannot say that he also has a right to be impleaded as the legal representative of deceased-Ram Singh because he is the brother of the deceased. 3 2025:HHC:31713 With these observations, this petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 31.01.2020, stands vacated. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 15, 2025 (narender)