2026:HHC:35186 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.  : 302 of 2026 Decided on    :   19.08.2026 Pritha Sharma & Another …Petitioners Versus Janak Raj Sharma & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners      :  Ms. Ritu Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents   : Mr.   M.S.   Thakur   &   Mr.   Manish Kumar, Advocates. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The   petitioners   have   initially   filed   the   present petition,  under Section 115  of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), however, later on, vide order dated 17.06.2026, passed in CMP No. 14939 of 2026, it was converted into the petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The  present petition has  been filed against  the order dated 26.02.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35186 Court No.8, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in an application, filed under Section 114 read with Order 5 Rule 25 of the CPC. 3. Brief   facts,   leading   to   the   filing   of   the   present petition, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under:­ 3.1. Respondent   No.1,   as   well   as,   predecessor­in­ interest   of   respondents   No.2   to   4,   have   filed   the   suit   for declaration, partition and permanent prohibitory injunction, against petitioners No.1 and 2, as well as, respondents No.5 to 11. The said suit was dismissed in default on 03.01.2018. Thereafter, application, under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC, has been filed. 3.2. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   petitioners   that thereafter, the present petitioners have filed an application, under Order 5 Rule 25 of the CPC, for reviewing the orders dated   27.02.2018   and   02.05.2018,   by   virtue   of   which, respondent   No.6   Amit   Sharma   (respondent   No.2,   in   the application)   and   respondent   No.8   Smt.   Pooja   Sharma 3 2026:HHC:35186 (respondent No.4(c), in the application), were ordered to be proceeded against exparte. 3.3. In addition to this, a prayer has also been made to serve respondents No.6 and 8, under the provisions of Order 5 Rule 25 of the CPC. 3.4. The said application has been filed, on the ground, that   respondent   No.1   has   disclosed   the   addresses   of respondents No.6 and 8, to be of Sanjauli and Middle Bazar respectively,   which   are   incorrect   to   the   knowledge   of respondent   No.1/plaintiff. However,   respondent   No.6­Amit Sharma,   is   residing   in   Kuwait,   for   the   last   26­27   years, whereas, respondent No.8, Ms. Pooja Sharma, has shifted to Canada, along with her family. 3.5. Petitioners have sought the review of the order dated   26.02.2024;   mainly,   on   the   ground,   that   the   above respondents   have   wrongly   been   proceeded   against  exparte, hence, a prayer has been made to review the orders dated 27.02.2018 and 02.05.2018, qua the service of respondent No.2 and   4(c)   and   plaintiff   be   permitted   to   comply   with   the 4 2026:HHC:35186 provisions of Order 5 Rule 25 of the CPC, for effecting service upon respondents No.2 and 4(c), in the interest of justice. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners were respondents, in the application, under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC. The learned counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners   could   not   satisfy   the judicial conscience of this Court qua the fact that when, the suit was filed by plaintiffs Janak Raj Sharma and Samarth Raj Sharma (since deceased), then, how the application, for review is maintainable, on behalf of the persons, who have been arrayed as defendants in the said suit. The present petitioners were arrayed, as defendants No.4(a) and 4(b), in the said lis. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners could also not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as to what was the error   apparent   on   the   face   of   record,   which   warrants interference, by this Court, in the limited jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 2026:HHC:35186 6. Considering the above facts, the petition, under consideration, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Record be sent back. ( Virender Singh ) August 19, 2026( ps ) Judge