2026:HHC:26628 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 337 of 2022 Date of decision: 02.07.2026. Paras Ram (deceased) through LRs. ...Appellants. Versus Chatro (deceased) through LRs. & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. N. K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondents Non. 1 (a) to 1 (d). Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant appeal arises out of judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, dated 26.09.2022, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. dated 11.05.2022, was affirmed whereby, the suit, as filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the counter claim as preferred by the defendant was ordered to be decreed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. The facts which emerge in the case are that the plaintiff/appellant Paras Ram filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Chamba on 03.03.2010. It was averred in the plaint that one Chatro who adopted son of Singhu is recorded owner of the suit land comprised in khata khatauni No. 9/12, khasra Nos. 531, 533, 538, 553, 561, 569, 574 and 578, kitta 9 measuring 03- 15-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Khalu, Pargna Diur, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. and the same is evident from the copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09. It was stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land being “Gair Marusi Tenant” since the time of their forefathers. The said fact was duly recorded in the revenue record and the same is evident from the copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09. The defendants who are strangers, started causing interference and nuisance over the suit land in the last week of February, 2010. The defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly and illegally by employing extra judicial means. The plaintiffs requested the defendants time and again not to indulge in such illegal acts and desist from causing interference. However, the defendants did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was prayed that a decree -3- for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering, causing nuisance, damage or taking forcible and illegal possession over suit land comprised in khata khatauni No. 9/12, khasra Nos. 531, 533, 538, 553, 561, 563 569, 574 and 578, kitta 9 measuring 03-15-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Khalu, Pargna Diur, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. The suit came to be resisted by the defendant Chatro @ Chattar Singh by filing written statement to the plaint and refuted all the averments as made in the plaint by raising various preliminary objections such as maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action etc. On merits, all the contentions as made in the plaint were denied. It was stated that the defendant is recorded owner of the suit land. It was averred in the written statement that in fact the suit land was once owned by one Nihala and was in cultivating possession of Sh. Hoshiaru son of late Lehnu as tenant. Sh. Hoshiaru was the only son of Sh. Lehnu from the womb of Chameli. After the death of Lehnu, Chameli performed second marriage with one Kirpu and form this marriage, plaintiff was born. Chameli in connivance with the revenue staff got her recorded as a tenant over the suit land without any basis knowing well that the -4- defendant being son of Sh. Hoshiaru is entitled to succeed the tenancy right which is wrong and illegal and not binding upon the parties. Neither Chameli nor the plaintiff ever came in possession of the suit land. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit as filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 4. After filing the written statement by Chatro @ Chattar Singh, counter claim also came to be filed by Chatro @ Chattar Singh and Sh. Chatro son of Singhu before the learned trial Court. In the counter claim, it was prayed that the suit as instituted by the plaintiff be dismissed and decree for declaration to the effect that defendant No.1 had become owner in possession of property comprised in khata khatauni No. 9/12, khasra Nos. 531, 533, 538, 553, 561, 563 569, 574 and 578, kitta 9 measuring 03-15-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Khalu, Pargna Diur, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. by operation of law and mutation No. 70 dated 14.05.1974 which was attested in favour of Chameli and subsequent entry showing in her favour and thereafter plaintiff Paras Ram as non-occupancy tenant be declared as null and void and not binding upon the rights of defendant No.1. Further, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the plaintiff from interfering in the suit land in any manner was sought. -5- 5. The plaintiff filed replication/ written statement to the written statement-cum-counter claim by reiterating all the averments as made in the plaint and denied the contents of the counter claim as filed by the defendant. 6. The learned trial Court on 18.04.2015, framed the issues in the following manner:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? ...OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as Gair Mousri Tenant, as alleged ..OPP 3. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession of the suit land, as prayed for? …OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? …OPD 5. Whether the counter claimant/defendant No.1 is the son of late Sh. Hoshyaru and had succeeded to the tenancy rights in respect of the suit land after the death of late Sh. Hoshyaru? ..OPD 6. Whether defendant No.1 has become owner in possession of the suit property by operation of law? …OPC 7. Whether the mutation No. 70 attested on 14.05.1974 in favour of Smt. Chameli and subsequent revenue entries showing Smt. Chameli and thereafter, the plaintiff as non occupancy tenant over the suit land are wrong, incorrect, illegal and not binding upon the rights of defendant No.1? ..OPC 8. Whether defendant No.1/counter claimant is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? …OPC -6- 9. Relief/final order” 7. The learned trial Court directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and vide its judgment and decree dated 11.05.2022, the learned Civil Judge, Chamba, dismissed the suit as instituted by the plaintiff and the counter claim as filed by the defendants was ordered to be decreed. It was ordered that the counter claimant Chatro @ Chattar Singh has become owner in possession over the suit property comprised in khata khatauni No. 9/12, khasra Nos. 531, 533, 538, 553, 561, 563, 569, 574 and 578, kitta 9 measuring 03-15-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Khalu, Pargna Diur, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. by operation of law and revenue entries showing Chameli and thereafter Paras Ram as non occupancy tenant over the above mentioned land are wrong, incorrect, illegal and not binding upon the rights of defendant No.1/counter claimant. Further, the counter claimant was held entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the plaintiffs from interfering in the suit property in any manner. 8. Feeling dissatisfied the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Chamba on 16.06.2022 under Section 96 of the CPC. The learned First -7- Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.09.2022 affirmed the findings as returned by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 9. Still feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court by instituting the present regular second appeal. 10. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgments and decrees as passed by the learned courts below are erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the learned courts below have not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and have wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and have erroneously decreed the counter claim as filed by the defendants. He would submit that after accepting the present appeal, the suit as filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be decreed and the counter claim as filed by the defendant deserves to be rejected. 11. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that composite appeal which was preferred by the plaintiffs before the learned First Appellate Court as well as the present appeal is not maintainable in its present form. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the dismissal of the suit and decreeing of the -8- counter claim amount to passing of two decrees. Therefore, the present appellant/plaintiff ought to have instituted two separate appeals before the learned First Appellate Court and in the absence of doing so, neither the appeal as preferred under Section 96 of CPC as well as present appeal is maintainable in its present form. 12. With the consent of the parties, the present appeal is finally heard on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether against dismissal of the suit and decreeing of the counter claim, composite appeal filed before the learned First Appellate Court was maintainable or not?” 13. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiffs had approached the learned trial Court for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants and on the other hand, the defendants had filed counter claim for seeking declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs and decreeing of counter claim filed by the -9- defendant, the appellant ought to have filed two separate appeals and in absence of doing so, the appeal as preferred before the learned First Appellate Court and RSA are not maintainable. Therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 15. As per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(A) to 6(G) of the CPC, a defendant, in a suit, may, set up, the counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff regarding any right or claim, in respect of a cause of action, accruing to the defendant, against the plaintiff, either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence, has expired. 16. As per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(A) to 6(G) of the CPC, such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court as the effect of the cross-suit and Counter Claim will be treated as the plaint, for which, the plaintiff has right to file written statement, and when counter claim has been filed, the Court will pronounce the final judgment, not only in the -10- suit filed by the plaintiff, but in the suit filed by the defendant, i.e., the Counter claim. 17. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(A) to 6(G) of the CPC are very clear and unambiguous and in view of the legal exposition of the law, it is no longer res-integra that the counter claim is the cross suit and dismissal of the counter claim is a decree and the same is appealable. 18. The scope and nature of the Counter Claim have elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 699. Relevant Paragraph-5 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “5. The question, therefore is: whether in a suit for injunction, counter-claim for injunction in respect of the same or a different property is maintainable? Whether counter-claim can be made on different cause of action? it is true that preceding CPC Amendment Act, 1976, Rule 6 of Order 8 limited the remedy to set off or counterclaim laid in a written statement only in a money suit. By CPC Amendment Act, 1976, Rules 6A to 6G were brought on statute. Rule 6-A(1) provides that a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the -11- nature of a claim for damage or not. A limitation put in entertaining the counter-claim is as provided in the proviso to sub-rule (1), namely, the counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Sub-rule (2) amplified that such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter- claim. The plaintiff shall be given liberty to file a written statement to answer the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. The counter- claim is directed to be treated, by operation of sub-rule (4) thereof, as a plaint governed by the rules of the pleadings of the plaint. Even before 1976 Act was brought on statute, this Court in Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai case of suit and cross suit by way of counter-claim. Therein, suit was filed for enforcement of an agreement to the effect that partnership between the parties had been dissolved and the partners had arrived at a specific amount to be paid to the appellant in full satisfaction of the share of one of the partners in the partnership and thereby decree for settlement of accounts was sought. Therein the legal representatives of the deceased partner contended in the written statement, not only denying the settlement of accounts but also made a counter- claim in the written statement for the rendition of accounts against the appellant and paid the court fee as plaint. They also sought a prayer to treat the counter- claim as a cross suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the counter-claim. On appeal, the learned Single Judge accepted the counter-claim on a plaint in a cross suit and remitted the suit for trial in accordance with law. On appeal, per majority, this Court had accepted the respondents' plea in the written statement to be a counter- claim for settlement of their claim and defence in written statement as a cross suit. The counter-claim could be treated as a cross suit and it could be decided in the same suit without relegating the parties to a fresh suit. It is true that in -12- money suits, decree must be conformable to Order 20, Rule 18, CPC but the object of the amendments introduced by Rules 6A to 6G are conferment of a statutory right on the defendant to set up a counter-claim independent of the claim on the basis of which the plaintiff laid the suit, on his own cause of action. In sub-rule (1) of Rule 6A, the language is so couched with words of wide width as to enable the parties to bring his own independent cause of action in respect of any claim that would be the subject matter of an independent suit. Thereby, it is no longer confined to money claim or to cause of action of the same nature as original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff. The words "any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing with the defendant" would show that the cause of action from which the counter-claim arises need not necessarily arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff that occasioned to lay the suit. The only limitation is that the cause of action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires. The defendant may set up a cause of action which has accrued to him even after the institution of the suit. The counter-claim expressly is treated as a cross suit with all the indicia of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to aver his cause of action and also payment of the requisite court fee thereon. Instead of relegating the defendant to an independent suit, to avert multiplicity of the proceeding and needles protection, the legislature intended to try both the suit and the counter- claim in the same suit as suit and cross suit and have them disposed of in the same trial. In other words, a defendant can claim any right by way of a counter-claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit. Acceptance of the contention of the appellant tends to defeat the purpose of amendment. -13- Opportunity also has been provided under Rule 6-C to seek deletion of the counter-claim. It is seen that the trial Court had not found it necessary to delete the counter- claim. The High Court directed to examine the identity of the property. Even otherwise, it being an independent cause of action, though the identity of the property may be different, there arises no illegality warranting dismissal of counter- claim. Nonetheless, in the same suit, both the claim in the suit and the counter- claim could be tried and decided anddisposed of in the same suit. In Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh where a Bench of two Judges of this Court was to consider the controversy, held that since the cause of action for the counter- claim had arisen before filing of the written statement, the counter-claim was maintainable. The question therein was of limitation with which we are not concerned in this case. Thus considered we find that there is no merit in the appeal.” 19. Similar view has again been reiterated by a three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyender & Ors. vs. Saroj & Ors., reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 679. Relevant paragraph 16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “16. The other finding of Second Appellate Court regarding the counter claim of the defendants on Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 is, however, correct and is based on right interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 6A of CPC. From the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it is clear that they had never raised any claim on Killa No. 6//18 or Killa No. 23. The defendants in their written statement while denying the rights of the plaintiffs on the land of which particulars had been given by the plaintiffs, quite ingeniously inserted the two Killa Nos.6//18 and 23, setting a counter- claim on these plots. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit had allowed this -14- claim for without assigning any reasons. In fact, this counter claim which was raised by the defendant is barred under Order VIII, Rule 6A of the CPC. Order VIII, Rule 6A reads as under:- [6A. Counter-claim by defendant.—(1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counterclaim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints A counter claim can be set up only “against the claim of the plaintiffs”. Since there was no claim of the plaintiffs regarding Killa No. 6//8 and 23, the defendants were barred to raise any counter claim on these Killa numbers in view of Order VIII, Rule 6A of the CPC as it has nothing to do with the plaintiffs. It is true that a counter claim can be made by the defendant, even on a separate or independent cause of action (Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors.). The -15- Legislature permits the institution of a counter claim, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. But then it has certain limitations such as that the counter claim cannot exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and that such counter claim must be instituted before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limit for delivering his defence has expired. More importantly, such a counter claim must be against the plaintiff! Evidently, in the present case the counter claim was not against the plaintiffs. Moreover, as the plaintiffs had not claimed any right over the property and the Killa Nos. 6//8 and 23 are not even a part of the suit property described in the plaint by the plaintiffs. Despite the same, such a claim has been allowed against the plaintiffs. In fact, we do not find on record any reply submitted by the plaintiffs against the counter claim. To be fair, such a counter claim should have been excluded in terms of Order VIII, Rule 6C of the CPC. Suffice it to state here that the counter claim set up by the defendants has been rightly rejected by the High Court.” 20. Perusal of the judgments reveals that a counter claim is to be treated as a plaint and governed by the same rules applicable to a plaint. It has been held that a counter claim can be set up only against the claim of the plaintiff; therefore, in substance, a counter claim is in the form of a plaint, and the dismissal of a counter claim is appealable. 21. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the learned Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 11.05.2022 -16- dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the counter claim as preferred by the defendant. 22. In a natural corollary dismissal of the suit and decreeing of the Counter Claim shows that there were two decrees, one, by virtue of which, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed and another, by virtue of which, the counter claim of the defendant was decreed, in that eventuality, the plaintiff was required to file two separate appeals. 23. Therefore, in such circumstances, the material question which arises for determination, before this Court, is whether the learned First Appellate Court could have entertained the composite appeal against the judgment dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and decreeing the counter claim of the defendant. 24. The said question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in case titled Ramesh Chand ss. Om Raj, reported in 2022(2) Shim. L.C. 1145, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has enumerated certain principles in this regard. Relevant Paragraph-42 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “42.The principles deducible from the afore discussed law can be summarized as follows: (i) When two suits are consolidated and tried together with common issues framed and common evidence led by the parties, resulting in a common judgment -17- and decree, the same can be subjected to challenge by way of a single appeal at the instance of the aggrieved party; (ii) Where a single appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree passed in two suits, which were consolidated and decided by a common judgment, decision of such single appeal, by a common judgment, reversing or modifying the claim in one suit out of the two, can be challenged by the aggrieved party also, in a single appeal. (iii) When two suits though not consolidated but are decided by a common judgment, resulting into preparation of two separate decrees, the aggrieved party would be required to challenge both of them by filing separate appeals; (iv) When both the suit and the counter claim are decreed by a common judgment, regardless of whether separate decree has been prepared in the counter claim, both would be required to be challenged by separate appeals; (v) In a case where two separate appeals are required to be filed against judgment of the suit and the counter claim and if appeal is filed only against one and not against the other, non filing of appeal against such judgment and decree would attach finality thereto and would attract not only the principle of res- judicata but also waiver and estoppal and the judgment and decree not appealed against would be taken to have been acquiesced to by the party not filing appeal; (vi) When however, two appeals are filed against a common, judgment passed by the trial Court, both by the plaintiff and the defendant, and are disposed of by the first appellate Court by modifying/ reversing/affirming judgment of the trial Court, the aggrieved party, would be required to challenge both by two separate appeals, in absence of which, non- filing of appeal against one shall attract bar of the principles of res-judicata against another. (vii) Where more than one appeals are required to be filed or are filed and one or more of them are dismissed for default, delay or any other similar reason, any such situation would attract -18- res-judicata and such dismissal would satisfy the requirement of appeal being heard and finally decided on merits ‘in a former suit’ for the purpose of attracting principles of res-judicata.” 25. Keeping in view, the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, on account of non-filing of the separate appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, attracts the principles of res- judicata. 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a similar situation in a case which has gone from this High Court in SLP (C ) D No. 59467/2024 titled as Charan Singh vs. Ram Saroop, decided on 03.02.2025, while dealing and deciding the same issue, came to the conclusion that reliance was rightly placed by the First Appellate Court on precedents to hold that a composite appeal was not maintainable in law but, at the same time, the First Appellate Court ought to have borne in mind that Courts exist for rendering justice albeit in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that once the First Appellate Court found correctly that challenge to the common judgment of the Trial Court had been laid in a composite appeal but it is the requirement of law to file two appeals with separate memorandum of appeal which had not been filed by the appellant, the Court ought to have at least alerted the appellant -19- by making him aware of the requirement of law and giving him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal. Further, it has been held in para-7 that in fact in terms of Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, the Appellate Court has the power to even dispense with the requirement of law of filing copy of the impugned judgment twice over if it is part of the memorandum of appeal already filed. It has been held that if even after being alerted the appellant had failed to file a separate memorandum, the First Appellate Court would have been perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that it is not shown to them that any endeavor was made. 27. From the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the Court is required to alert the appellant regarding the requirement of law and afford him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court with liberty to the party to file a separate memorandum of appeal in accordance with law. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court further directed that, in case the appellant files a separate memorandum of appeal, the -20- same shall be registered without limitation and decided in accordance with law. 29. Taking into consideration the legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 26.09.2022, the matter is remitted back to the learned First Appellate Court with liberty to the plaintiffs to file an independent appeal within a period of six weeks positively from today. Once filed, the same shall be registered without limitation, being treated as a bar and both appeals shall thereafter be decided afresh on their own merits. 30. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of. After setting aside the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chamba dated 26.09.2022 in civil Appeal No. 20 of 2022. The parties are relegated to the Court of First Appeal. 31. It is directed that if the appellant prefer an independent, separate appeal within a period of six weeks from today, both Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2022 and the new appeal shall be decided together expeditiously. It is made clear that if -21- the appellants fail to do so within six weeks from today, they shall lose the benefit of this order. 32. Therefore, after allowing the present Regular Second Appeal, the appeal is remitted to the Court of the learned First Appellate Court by restoring it to its original number, to be decided alongside the other appeal, if any, filed by the plaintiff/appellant on or before 20.08.2026. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned First Appellate Court on 20.07.2026. The learned First Appellate Court is requested to expedite the appeal. The Registry is directed to send back the record forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 2nd July, 2026. (kck)