1 ( 2026:HHC:6429 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 316 of 2022 & CMP(M) No.113 of 2026 Reserved on 24.02.2026 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 Smt. Devinder Kaur Sidhu ...Appellant. Versus Amrik Singh alias Amrit Jaijee & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.S Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 already ex parte. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for LRs of respondent No.4. Romesh Verma, Judge The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. dated 06.07.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by respondents No. 1 and 2 was partly allowed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Solan, H.P. dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:6429 ) 01.10.2013 was modified and consequently the suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be decreed. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, one of the defendants preferred the Regular Second Appeal before this Court. It shall be borne out from the record that the original defendant Smt. Surinder Jit Kaur, daughter of late Sh. Hem Singh, wife of late Col. Ranjeet Singh expired during the pendency of the proceedings before Appellate Court and thereafter her legal heirs, namely Smt. Sadev Kaur Dhillon, wife of Opinder Singh Dhillon and Smt. Devinder Kaur Sidhu wife of Sh. Deginder Singh Sidhu, were arrayed as defendants/respondents No. 1(a) and 1(b) before the First Appellate Court. After the acceptance of the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, only Smt. Devinder Kaur Sidhu has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal, whereas the other defendant namely Smt. Sadev Kaur Dhillon has been arrayed as proforma respondent No.3 in the present proceedings. To the same effect, defendant Bhupinder Kaur also did not assail the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge and has been arrayed as proforma respondent No.4. 3. It is apt to observe that suit was filed by the plaintiffs namely Amrik Singh alias Amrik Jaijee and Smt. Ajeet Jaijee against Smt. Surinder Jit Kaur, the predecessor of the appellant and Smt. Bhupinder Kaur. Both the defendants were represented by the learned counsel. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 3 ( 2026:HHC:6429 ) 4. Feeling dis-satisfied, the plaintiffs approached the Court of learned District Judge, Solan, by instituting an appeal on 12.12.2013 against the defendants. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No.1 Smt. Surinder Jit Kaur died and her legal representatives namely Smt. Sadev Kaur Dhillon and Smt. Devinder Kaur Sidhu were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b). The said respondents were represented through their learned counsel. The learned District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 5. Against the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, only respondent-defendant No.1(b)-Smt. Devinder Kaur Sidhu, preferred an appeal before this Court. However, neither respondent No.1(a) Smt. Sadev Kaur Dhillon nor respondent No.2 Smt. Bhupinder Kaur assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. Meaning thereby, they accepted the judgment as passed by the learned first Appellate Court. The respondent No.3 and 4 herein were duly served and the same is revealed from order dated 21.12.2022 and despite service they chose not to appear before this Court. Consequently, they were proceeded against ex parte. 6. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 10.11.2022, returnable after four weeks on taking steps within a period of one week. In the interim in CMP No. 15557 of 2022, this Court had passed the order, whereby operation, implementation and execution of 4 ( 2026:HHC:6429 ) judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan H.P. was ordered to be stayed. 7. On 21.12.2022, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. On the said date though respondents No. 3 and 4 had been served but none appeared on their behalf and consequently, they were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. On 20.03.2023, the appeal was admitted and post admission notices were ordered to be issued to respondents No 3 and 4. Pursuant to that, continuously the case was being listed for the service of respondent No.4. 8. On 03.11.2025, it was ordered that consequential steps on account of death of respondent No.4 are awaited and time was granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to take consequential steps. Thereafter the case was posted on 10.12.2025 and on the said date also time was granted to the appellant to take consequential steps on account of death of respondent No.4 namely Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, daughter of late Sh. Hem Singh. The case was listed on 23.02.2026. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to pursue the present appeal and he wants to withdraw the same. 9. Learned Senior counsel Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sh. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, apprised the Court on the said date that since he had filed an application under Order 22 Rules 4, 9 and 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C & Section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the matter may be adjourned for 5 ( 2026:HHC:6429 ) 24.02.2026. On his request, the case was posted on 24.02.2026. On 24.02.2026, again Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate submitted that he has instructions to withdraw the present Regular Second Appeal unconditionally without adjudicating the claim of the respective parties. The said submission was opposed and objected by the learned Senior counsel on the ground that since the legal heirs of respondent No.4 have got rights in the present lis, therefore, they may be ordered to be brought on record. 10. It is further submitted by Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior counsel that the application under Order 22 Rules 4, 9 and 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C & Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be allowed. When put to notice, Shri Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant submitted that he is under instructions to withdraw the appeal and he does not intend to file reply to the application being CMP (M) No.113 of 2026. 11. Consequently, after condoning the delay in filing the application, the legal representatives as mentioned in para No.1 of the application (CMP (M) No.113 of 2026) are ordered to be brought on record as respondent Nos. 4(a) and 4(b). Abatement, if any, is also set aside. The application being CMP(M) No.113 of 2026 stands allowed and disposed of. 12. Learned Senior counsel Mr.Neeraj Gupta has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as R. 6 ( 2026:HHC:6429 ) Dhanasundari alias R. Rajeswari versus A.N. Umakanth and others (2020) 14 SCC 1 and the relevant paras read as follows: “7. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, upon the existing plaintiffs seeking permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have rightly been allowed to be transposed as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC and to continue with the suit, as originally filed against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 11. As per Rule 1-A ibid., in the eventuality of plaintiff withdrawing the suit or abandoning his claim, a pro forma defendant, who has a substantial question to be decided against the co-defendant, is entitled to seek his transposition as plaintiff for determination of such a question against the said co-defendant in the given suit itself. The very nature of the provisions contained in Rule 1-A ibid. leaves nothing to doubt that the powers of the Court to grant such a prayer for transposition are very wide and could be exercised for effectual and comprehensive adjudication of all the matters in controversy in the suit. The basic requirement for exercise of powers under Rule 1-A ibid. would be to examine if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon his claim under Rule 1 of Order XXIII and the defendant seeking transposition is having an interest in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a substantial question to be adjudicated against the other defendant. In such a situation, the pro forma defendant is to be allowed to continue with the same suit as plaintiff, thereby averting the likelihood of his right being defeated and also obviating the unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.” 13. The perusal of the said judgment demonstrates that the said judgment was passed while dealing with the question of 7 ( 2026:HHC:6429 ) transposition. In the present case, the appellant does not want to continue with the proceedings and unconditionally, she wants to withdraw the appeal without adjudicating the claims of the respective parties. 14. It is well settled principle of law that appellant is a dominus litis, to say, in other words, appellant is master of suit and she has the right to control the proceedings. The appellant has the discretion to withdraw the proceedings as the proceedings were initiated at her behest. The appellant has the right to withdraw the suit or appeal, if it is done unconditionally. Therefore, under such circumstances, once the learned counsel for the appellant under instructions has specifically pleaded that he does not want to pursue the present appeal and he wants to withdraw the same unconditionally, this Court cannot proceed further. 15. Once the withdrawal is unconditional, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be accepted and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. 16. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 10.03.2026 (veena/krt)