1 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.83 of 2017 Date of Decision : 31.03.2026 Satish Kumar & ors. ...Petitioners Versus Sanjay Bansal & others. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1,2 and 4. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The petitioners/plaintiffs have approached this Court against the impugned orders dated 22.06.2016, Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 C.P.C to direct the learned counsel for the defendants to disclose the particulars of the death and legal heirs of deceased Sarla Devi has been rejected and consequently, the suit was dismissed as having been abated against the plaintiffs. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed the suit for specific performance of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) agreement before the learned trial Court in the year 2007. The plaintiffs/petitioners had sought decree for specific performance against the defendants to perform part of the agreement dated 17.11.2003 and to get the sale deed registered qua the suit land comprising of khasra No. 195/186, measuring 30-08 bighas, khasra No.196/1862 measuring 4-07 bighas, khasra No.198/37/13 measuring 33-05 bighas and KhasraNo. 197/186 measuring 0-4 bighas, total measuring 68-04 bighas, situated in revenue village Johron, Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing common written statement on 12.11.2007. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.5 Smt. Savitri Devi expired on 18.01.2010. On account of death of defendant No.5, an application for bringing on record the legal representatives was filed and the same was allowed. 4. Consequently, the legal representatives of defendant No.5 namely Sh. Surinder Nath and Smt. Sarla Devi were ordered to be brought on record. The Court issued notices for the service of defendant Nos. 5(a) and 5(b). In that process, the said LR of defendant No. 5 Savitri Devi, defendant No.5(a) Surinder Nath was duly served and he appeared before the 3 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) Court and filed written statement. However, a report was received before the Court that defendant No.5(b) Sarla Devi has expired. Consequently the plaintiffs/petitioners were directed to take steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 5(b) late Smt. Sarla Devi. 5. An application under Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of C.P.C read with Section 151 C.P.C was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners with a prayer that the plaintiffs may be exempted from substituting the legal representatives of deceased defendant namely Savitri Devi. As a matter of fact, there was a typographical error in the averments as made in the application. Instead of writing defendant Sarla Devi, the name of original defendant, who had expired earlier Smt. Savitri Devi, was incorporated in the application. Realizing their mistake, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C read with Section 151 C.P.C (at page No.39 of the paper book) for carrying out necessary corrections that instead of Savitri Devi, the name of Smt. Sarla Devi be read in the said application. 6. One more application under Section 151 C.P.C (at page No. 46 of the paper book) was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for directing the learned counsel of the 4 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) defendants to supply the particulars of the LRs of defendant No.5(b) Smt. Sarla Devi and to file the death certificate of respondent No.5(b) in the Court. 7. The said application was duly contested by the respondents/defendants. 8. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 22.06.2016, dismissed both the applications under Section 151 C.P.C as well as application under Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 9. It is contended by Mr. Suneet Goel, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and both the orders have been passed against the spirit of law especially the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivshankara and another vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char (2023) 13 SCC 1, which reads as under: “59 We are of the considered view that the same analogy is applicable in a case where even in the event of death of one of the defendants, when the estate/interest was being fully and substantially represented in the suit jointly by the other defendants along with deceased defendant and when they are also his legal representatives. 60. In such cases, by reason of non-impleadment of all other legal heirs consequential to the death of the said 5 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) defendant, the defendants could not be heard to contend that the suit should stand abated on account of non-substitution of all the other legal representatives of the deceased defendant. In this case, it is to be noted that along with the deceased 3rd defendant the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly defending their joint interest. Hence, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision and taking into account the fact that the appellants/ the original defendants No. 1 and 2 despite the death of original defendant No.3 defended the suit and preferred and prosecuted the first appeal. Upon the death of the second appellant the joint interest is being fully and substantially taken forward in this proceeding as well by the first appellant along with the substituted legal representatives of the deceased second appellant, we do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the courts below for rejecting the contention that suit ought to have held abated owing to the non substitution of all the legal heirs of deceased third defendant against all defendants. For the same reason, the contention that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties of all his legal heirs/representatives also has to fail.” 10. He has submitted that the approach as adopted by the learned trial Court is hypertecnical. He has further submitted that prior to passing of the impugned orders, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to have decided the application for amendment. 6 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) 11. On the other hand, Sh. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate has defended the impugned orders and submitted that since no appropriate steps were taken by the plaintiffs /petitioners, therefore, the orders as passed by the learned trial Court are legal,valid and sustainable. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. 13. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the suit defendant No.5, Savitri Devi died in January, 2010 and an appropriate application for the substitution of the said defendant was filed and consequently, her legal representatives namely Sh. Surinder Nath and Smt. Sarla Devi were ordered to be brought on record. On issuance of the notices, Surinder Nath respondent No. 5(a) was duly served and he filed the written statement, that is part of the record. However, as per the report as received by the Registry of the learned trial Court, respondent No.5(b) Smt. Sarla Devi had expired prior to her appearance before the learned trial Court. 14. It is contended by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that once one of the legal heirs of respondent No.5, namely Surinder Nath was ordered to be 7 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) brought on record and he had filed the written statement , therefore, in view of the mandate as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivshankara’s case (supra), the suit could not have been ordered to be abated as a whole. He has submitted that without conceding even if no consequential steps were taken on account of death of said respondent suit could have been abated only qua respondent No.5(b) i.e late Smt Sarla Devi, however, order as passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. He has further submitted that on account of genuine difficulty being faced by the plaintiffs/petitioners, the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents could not have any problem to supply the particulars of the legal heirs and the death certificate of the deceased respondent No.5(b) to the learned trial Court. 16. In case the gist of the impugned orders dated 22.06.2016 is seen, it goes to show that the learned trial Court has passed the order by taking into consideration as if the application has been filed under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4(4) C.P.C on account of death of Smt. Savitri Devi which is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact there 8 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) was a typographical error in the original application which was filed by the plaintiffs and for the rectification of the same, necessary application for the amendment was filed. However, the learned trial court has not touched the said application and the same has remained undecided. 17. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court ought to have decided the application for amendment alongwith the present applications in order to determine and adjudicate the controversy in question properly and effectively. 18. Consequently both the impugned orders dated 22.06.2016 are quashed and set-aside with the direction to the learned trial Court to decide all three applications including the application for amendment collectively and to pass fresh order in view of the mandate as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Shankara’s case (supra). 19. Since the suit pertains to the year 2007, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the case in hand. 19. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sirmaur District at Nahan, HP on 10.04.2026. Record be remitted back. 9 ( 2026:HHC:10176 ) The instant petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms (Romesh Verma), Judge 31.03.2026 (veena)