IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.118 of 2022 Decided on 11th September, 2025 Ramku Devi …Petitioner Versus The Land Acquisition Collector NTPC (Koldam) Bilaspur and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That the petitioner has got no other equally efficacious remedy except filing the present petition. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 14-01-2022 and restore the order dated 23-11-2021 of Ld. Distt. Judge, Mandi, H.P. passed in Execution Petition no. 226/2019 Titled Ramku and 2 others Vs LAO NTPC and others or any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order in terms whereof, learned Executing Court has set aside its earlier order dated 23.11.2021 on the ground that the same was passed by ignoring the factum of the death of one of the decree holders before it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner was also one of the beneficiaries of the said order, recalling the entire order is not sustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the light of the fact that the order was passed against a dead person and in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is a nullity, therefore, but obviously, order had to go in its entirety and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the subsequent order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 25.03.2022 and has 3 submitted that it would be in the interest of justice in case the learned Court below is directed to decide the application filed by the legal representatives of deceased Sunder expeditiously so that execution petition can also be thereafter decided expeditiously. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that as the order was passed by the learned Court below in the light of the fact that one of the decree holders was dead, obviously the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accorded because this Court cannot say that an order passed by the learned Executing Court would be good for the decree holder who was alive as on the day when the order was passed and bad qua the decree holder who was dead on the date when the order was passed. 6. Further, the order that has been passed on 25.03.2022 demonstrates that issues have been framed by the learned Executing Court qua the validity of the Will on the basis of which the legal representatives of deceased Sunder has made an application for their impleadment as legal representatives. 4 7. This Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case, as there is no objection with regard to the validity of that Will, taken by any other private individuals claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Sunder. It would have been in the interest of justice had issues not been framed by the learned Executing Court, because, it is not understood as what NTPC has got to do with the validity of the Will executed by Sh. Sunder. 8. Therefore, in exercise of its power conferred under Article 227 of the constitution of India in the larger of interest of justice, this petition is disposed of with the direction that though this Court is not interfering with the impugned order, however, the subsequent order passed by the learned Executing Court is modified by ordering that let said application be decided summarily on the basis of the contents of the application as well as reply filed thereto if any by the respondent without calling upon the parties to lead evidence on the issues framed in terms of the said order. To the said extent this order stands modified by this Court. 5 9. As prayed for, parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 25.09.2025. Thereafter, the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC be decided by the learned Trial Court on or before 31.10.2025 and remaining proceedings be also decided as expeditiously as possible. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 11, 2025 (Vinod)