( 2026:HHC:2960 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.754 of 2025 Decided on: 09.01.2026 ____________________________________________________ Bindya Kuller and others ……….. petitioners Versus Himalayan Brahmo Samaj Mandir Trust Shimla and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner seeking revocation of the order dated 4.4.2015, by which leave to institute the suit under Section 92 CPC was granted to the plaintiff, has been dismissed. 2. Leave to institute the suit in the case at hand was accorded to the present respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 vide order dated 4.4.2015. The said order was assailed by defendants No. 1 to 4 by way of filing an appropriate civil revision petition before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The revision petition so preferred before the Coordinate Bench of this Court 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 bearing No. 40 of 2016 was decided vide judgment dated 19.4.2016. In the same, an observation was made that defendants No. 1 to 4 could avail the remedy of filing an appropriate application for revocation of the leave granted. Incidentally, the present petitioners No. 1 & 2 are defendants No. 2 & 3 before the trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, it would be apt to note that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4, i.e. S.C. Suri and Sh. Vijay Pandey, respectively, have died. 4. Subsequent thereto, an application for revocation of leave granted vide order dated 4.4.2015 was filed by present respondent No. 6/defendant No. 7 before the trial Court. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2018 and the said order has attained finality. 5. Thereafter, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed by defendants No. 1 to 4 before the trial Court, which came up for consideration on 2.11.2019. In the same, a contention was raised that the matter could not have been assigned by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge-II to try the matter. Parties were directed by the Additional District Judge to appear before the Court of the District Judge concerned on 16.11.2019. In pursuance thereto, the parties appeared before the Court of the District Judge concerned. The District Judge posted the matter for 28.11.2019. On the said date, the District Judge concerned observed that the Additional District Judge-II was required to send 3 a reference to High Court rather than sending the matter back to the District Judge and ordered appearance before the Additional District Judge-II on 30.11.2019. Thereafter, the Additional District Judge-II decided to return the plaint to the plaintiff. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, a CMPMO bearing No. 10 of 2020 was filed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 5.1.2024 held that the leave granted vide order dated 4.4.2015 for institution of the suit in the case at hand is void and ordered that the matter be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, who was directed to decide a fresh. The application filed under Section 94 CPC by the present respondents/plaintiffs seeking leave of the Court. 7. Aggrieved by the same, SLP(C) bearing No. 9334 of 2024, titled Himalayan Brahmo Samaj Mandir Trust, Shimla and others vs. Bindiya Kuller and others was filed. The impugned judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench on 5th January, 2024 was set aside. The said SLP was decided on 4th February, 2025. The relevant extract of the same reads as follows:- “8 In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside. Consequently, the matter is directed to be proceeded with by the Additional District Judge. It is needless to state that the grant of leave and the consequential order of injunction stand restored, and the suit shall proceed from that stage”. 4 8. In the aforesaid judgment, the attention of learned counsel for the petitioner is also invited to para 6 of the judgment. The relevant extract whereof reads as under:— “6………. ……….. ………….. …………. The application of the defendants seeking revocation of leave was rejected, and the same has attained finality.” 9. The present application for revocation filed on behalf of the present petitioners, i.e. defendants no. 1 & 2 was instituted on 25.7.2025 and the same was decided on 25.11.2025. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.11.2025. Even otherwise, the present respondents/defendants cannot be permitted to file the revocation application when one of the defendants, i.e. defendant No. 7, who is the present respondent No. 6, had on a previous occasion filed a revocation application, which was dismissed on 16.8.2018 and the said order has attained finality. Piecemeal raising of objections by different sets of defendants in the suit cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 9th January, 2026 Tarun