1 ( 2026:HHC:31614 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.92 of 2016 Date of Decision: 29.07.2026 Govind Singh (deceased) through LRs. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Mast Ram …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (Oral): Appellant-Govind Singh had preferred the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, camp at Rohru, (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court), in Civil Appeal No.17-R/13 of 2012, titled as Mast Ram versus Govind Singh and others. 2. By way of the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2015, the learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal, preferred by respondent-Mast Ram, which he had preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:31614 ) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in Civil Suit No.13-1 of 2008 and Counter Claim No.48-01 of 2009, titled as Mast Ram versus Govind Singh and others. 3. By way of judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit, filed by respondent-Mast Ram and counter claim filed by appellants No.2 and 3. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, is reproduced, as under:- “39. In view of my findings and discussions on issue No.1, 2 & 3, the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of redemption is dismissed with costs. Whereas, in view of my findings on the said above issues the counter claim of the counter claimant for specific performance of agreement dated 02.05.1981 is decreed with costs. The plaintiff/non-counter claimant-claimant is directed to execute the sale deed of the suit property in favour of the defendants/counter claimants as per agreement dated 02.05.1981 and to get the same registered as per the requirement of law.” 4. The learned First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal, has set-aside the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012 and suit of the plaintiff for vacant possession was ordered to be decreed, qua suit land bearing Khasra No.256, measuring 00-35-05 hectares, situated at Chak Up Mohal Viratnagar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., on the basis 3 ( 2026:HHC:31614 ) of the title, whereas, the counter claim of appellants No.2 and 3, was ordered to be dismissed. 5. In such situation, this Court is of the view that against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012, passed by the learned trial Court, two appeals were required to be filed; one against the dismissal of the suit and second against the judgment and decree, by virtue of which, the counter claim of appellants No.2 and 3 was decreed. 6. In this regard, it would be profitable to reproduce paras 7 to 9 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Charan Singh versus Ram Saroop, reported in SLP D.No.59467 of 2024, as under:- “7. In our considered view, 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. Once the first appellate court found, correctly, that challenge to the common judgment of the trial court dated 16th March, 2021 had been laid in a composite appeal but it is the requirement of law to file two appeals with separate memoranda of appeal, which had not been filed by the appellant, the court ought to have at least alerted the appellant by making him aware of the requirement of law and giving him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal. 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. In any event, the defect was not such that it was incurable. The composite appeal was filed well within the period of limitation and, except for the fact that a separate memorandum of appeal was not filed, no other defect, far less serious defect, was shown to exist. If even after being alerted the appellant had failed to file a separate memorandum, the first appellate court would have been perfectly 4 ( 2026:HHC:31614 ) justified in dismissing the appeal. It is not shown to us that any such endeavour was made. 8. The first appellate court having failed to alert the appellant, we would have expected the High Court to intervene to set right the wrong by its interdiction. Technicality of a nature such as this should not have been allowed to prevail over substantive justice. The appellant had filed two second appeals before the High Court, meaning thereby that he had been properly advised while such advice might have been missing in the district of which the parties are residents. Unfortunately, the High Court did not address the point from the proper perspective either. While spurning the objection of learned counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently argued that there is no occasion to interfere since the appellant did not adhere to the law, we find good reason and ground to interfere. 9. For the ends of justice, we set aside the impugned second appellate judgment and decree of the High Court together with the first appellate judgment and decree. This would result in revival of the first appeal on the file of the first appellate court. We grant liberty to the appellant to file a separate memorandum of appeal, without certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree, within three weeks from date. Once it is filed, the same shall be registered without limitation being treated as a bar. Should there be a default, the appellant shall lose the benefit of this order.” 7. Being guided, by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is left with no other option, but, to set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court and the appeal preferred by the respondent- Mast Ram, is ordered to be revived to the files of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, camp at Rohru. 8. In addition to this, liberty is given to the respondent-Mast Ram to file the second appeal, against the judgment and decree, by virtue of which, the counter claim has been decreed, if so advised. 5 ( 2026:HHC:31614 ) 9. Since the lis, is pending between the parties from the year 2008, as such, it is expected that the learned First Appellate Court will decide the appeal, so preferred, within a time bound manner, preferably within a period of six months from today. 10. It is clarified that in case, the appeal will be filed within a period of four weeks from today, then, the question of limitation will not come, against the respondent-Mast Ram. 11. Parties through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 12.08.2026, at 10:00 am. 12. With these observations, appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Virender Singh) Judge July 29, 2026 (Subhash)