2026:HHC:33633 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 63 of 2008 Reserved on: 29.07.2026 Date of Decision: 11.08.2026 Sheel Chandra (since deceased) through LRs. ...Appellants Versus Ranvir Sharma & others ...Respondents _____________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. For the respondents : Mr Mohinder Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2 Ms Suhani Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No.3. The name of Proforma respondent No.4 stands deleted vide order dated 25.08.2015. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2000 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33633 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla (learned trial Court) were upheld. (The parties hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Pooja Co-operative Housing Society filed a civil suit No. 201/1 of 1997/91 against Sheel Chandra and Nandni Chandra for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 295, 296, 343/293/3, in Khewat No. 37, Khatauni No. 58, situated in Mauja Bharyal, Pargana Kaimli, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. Sheel Chandra also filed a civil suit No. 207/1 of 1997/91 against the President and Office bearers of Pooja Co-operative Housing Society for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining them from interfering in land bearing Khewat No. 36, Khatauni No. 59, measuring 1 Bigha 7 Biswa situated at Mauja Bharyal, Pargana Kaimli, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. 3. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues in Civil Suit No. 201/1 of 1997/91 on 12.07. 1995: - 3 2026:HHC:33633 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is void ab initio? OPD 6. Relief. 4. Learned trial Court framed the following issue in Civil Suit No. 207/1 of 1997/91 on 21.07.1995: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD. 4. Whether the sale in favour of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void? OPD. 5. Relief. 5. Both the suits were taken up together for disposal and judgments and decrees dated 28.02.2000 were passed, dismissing Civil Suit No. 201-1 of 1997/91 and decreeing Suit No. 207/1 of 1997/91. 6. Being aggrieved, Sheel Chandra filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 201/1 of 1997/91, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Judge, 4 2026:HHC:33633 Fast Track Court, Shimla (learned Appellate Court) vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, Sheel Chandra has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. 8. Mr Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, raised a preliminary submission that the learned trial Court had decreed the Civil Suit No. 207/1 of 1997/91 and dismissed the Civil Suit No. 201/1 of 1997/91; therefore, two separate appeals should have been filed before the learned Appellate Court. One appeal was not maintainable before the learned Appellate Court, and a single appeal before this Court is also not maintainable. 9. Ms Suhani Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No.3, adopted these submissions and submitted that the appeal filed by Sheel Chandra be dismissed as not maintainable. 10. Mr Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, conceded that a composite appeal was not maintainable against the judgment and decree, decreeing one suit and dismissing the other, and separate appeals should have been filed. However, he submitted that this was a technical defect and should have been 5 2026:HHC:33633 brought to the notice of the appellants by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court had not done so, and the appeal cannot be held to be not maintainable without affording an opportunity to the appellants to rectify the defect. Hence, he prayed that the matter be remitted to the learned Appellate Court to enable the appellants to rectify the defect. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh vs. Ram Saroop Civil Appeal No. 1585 of 2025, decided on 03.02.2025, and the judgment of this Court in Desh Raj & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar & Anr. 2026:HHC:5450 in support of his submissions. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. Om Raj, 2022 SCC OnLine HP 2094 that when two suits, though not consolidated, are decided by a common judgment, and two separate decrees are prepared, the aggrieved party would be required to challenge both of them by filing separate appeals. It was observed: 42. The principles deducible from the afore-discussed law can be summarised as follows: - xxxxxxx 6 2026:HHC:33633 (iii) When two suits, though not consolidated, are decided by a common judgment, resulting in the preparation of two separate decrees, the aggrieved party would be required to challenge both of them by filing separate appeals. 13. It was further held that if two appeals are required to be filed and only one appeal is filed, the decree not appealed would be deemed to have been acquiesced in. It was observed: (v) In a case where two separate appeals are required to be filed against the judgment of the suit and the counterclaim and if the 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 estoppel and the judgment and decree not appealed against would be taken to have been acquiesced to by the party not filing an appeal; 14. Therefore, in view of the binding precedent of the Division Bench of this Court, a single appeal was not maintainable, and two appeals were required to be preferred. 15. The matter does not rest here. A similar situation arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh (supra), wherein a composite appeal was filed before the learned Appellate Court, which was dismissed after holding that such an appeal was not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the learned First Appellate Court was right in holding that a 7 2026:HHC:33633 composite appeal was not maintainable, but it should have alerted the appellant by making him aware of the requirement of law and by giving him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal. It was observed: “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 a 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 justified in dismissing the appeal. It is not shown to us that any such endeavour was made.” 16. It was further held that the High Court should have set right the wrong by its interdiction and technicality of this 8 2026:HHC:33633 nature should not have been allowed to prevail over the substantive justice. It was observed: “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.” 17. This judgment was followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Deshraj versus Vinod Kumar (supra), and the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court with liberty to the defendants to file an independent appeal within three weeks, and once so filed, it was ordered to be treated as within a limitation. These judgments are binding on this Court. 18. Therefore, the submission made by Mr Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms Suhani Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No.3, is accepted that the present appeal is not maintainable. However, the appeal cannot be dismissed as per the binding precedent of 9 2026:HHC:33633 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the matter is required to be remitted to the learned Appellate Court with a direction to permit the appellants to file an independent appeal and thereafter decide the matter as per the law. Final Order: 19. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Court are ordered to be set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Appellate Court with liberty to the appellants to file a memorandum of appeal within a period of three weeks. If such a memorandum is filed, the same shall be treated as within limitation, and thereafter the matter shall be decided as per law. In case no memorandum of appeal is filed within the prescribed limit, the appeal shall stand dismissed as not maintainable. 20. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 26.08.2026. 21. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 10 2026:HHC:33633 22. Records of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th August, 2026 (ravinder)