2026:HHC:11519 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No. 18437 of 2022 and CMP(M) No. 1781 of 2022 in RSA No. 126 of 2009 Decided on : 01.04.2026 Bhagwanti Devi and others …Applicants Versus Bahadur Singh (deceased) through LRs and others …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the applicants : Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate, vice Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(d). Mr. Ashok K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1(c). Virender Singh, Judge Applicants had assailed the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2009, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’). 2. By way of judgment and decree dated 20.02.2009, passed by the First Appellate Court, the appeal preferred by the applicants against the judgment 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and decree dated 29.09.2001, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 233 of 1993, titled as “Bhagwanti Devi and another Versus Bahadur Singh and others”, has been dismissed. 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2001, learned trial Court has dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, filed by the applicants. 4. The said appeal has been registered as Regular Second Appeal (RSA) No. 126 of 2009 and was admitted on 27.03.2009. However, on 23rd July, 2021, the appellants, through their counsel, have submitted before the Court that they do not want to press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of, as not pressed. This Court had passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the appellants states that he is under instructions not to press the appeal. 2. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of as not pressed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.” 5. Now, by way of the present application, which has been filed under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Sections 114, 151 and 152 of CPC, for 3 review/modification/withdrawal of the order dated 23.07.2021, passed by this Court. 6. The application has been moved on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 2 Kuldeep Singh had expired and his legal heirs were brought on record, subject to payment of cost. It is the further case of the applicants that order, so passed, was communicated to the applicants and they were requested to deposit the cost imposed by this Court. However, said order could not be complied with, for one reason or other and due to some family problem. It is their further case that recently, applicant Aman Kumar, approached the counsel and inquired about the fate of the case, then, it was apprised that the appeal has been disposed of, being not pressed. 6.1. According to the applicants, the said statement appears to have been made on account of no communication between the applicants and the counsel and not on account of non deposit of the cost, as imposed by this Court. 6.2 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application, as prayed for. 4 7. Since the application has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, hence, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condoning the delay has also been filed. The delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but, on account of the grounds, as taken in the application for review. 8. When put to notice, these applications have been contested by the non-applicants, mainly on the ground that no error apparent on the face of the record is made out, nor, the order, which has been passed on the statement at bar made by the counsel representing the applicants, can be reviewed. In nutshell, according to the non-applicants, there is no justifiable reason for allowing the cause, as made in the applications. 9. Perusal of the record shows that the learned Senior Counsel representing the applicants in Regular Second Appeal, under the instructions of instructing counsel, has made the statement and the Court, thereafter, has dismissed the appeal, being not pressed. 10. Now, it does not lie in the mouth of the applicants to say that they had not instructed their 5 counsel to make the statement. The stand “the said statement appears to have been made on account of no communication between the applicants and their counsel”, cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The application lacks the ingredients of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. As such, there is no occasion for this Court to allow the applications. 11. Consequently, the applications, under consideration, are dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, are also ordered to be disposed of, accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge 1st April, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)