Himachal Pradesh High Court
The State Of Hp vs . Maharaj Di Kutiya And Others on 2 March, 2023
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
The State of HP vs. Maharaj Di Kutiya and others .
RSA No. 40 of 2023 02.03.2023 Present: M/s Pushpender Jaswal and Baldev Negi, Additional Advocate Generals for the appellant-State.
By way of this appeal, the appellant-State has assailed the judgments and decrees passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court in terms whereof a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the appeal preferred by the defendant-State was dismissed.
When the case was taken up for consideration on admission, a perusal of the regular second appeal, more so, the memo of parties thereof demonstrates that the same is not as per the memo of parties either of the civil suit or the appeal, yet, the matter was listed before the Court. Accordingly, the concerned official from the RSA Branch was summoned by the Court as to how the case was listed before the Court when the memo of parties was incorrect. The official has pointed out that thrice objections were raised by the Registry in this regard but there was a note of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, which reads as under:-
"Records obtained from Lower Court is as it is. Respondent No. 3 is baseless and has no meaning (RW- Ex parte)"
::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:32:11 :::CIS
This note of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, .
Kangra, has been endorsed by the office of learned Advocate General and thereafter, it appears that the Registry was having no option but to place the file before the Court.
It is settled procedure that the memo of parties as is contained in a civil suit, has to be maintained until and unless modifications are ordered therein in terms of judicial orders and the parties do not have any discretion to unilaterally alter the same. Herein the appellant not only has not impleaded all the parties who were there in the civil suit either as respondents/proforma respondents, but also the objection raised in this regard by the Registry of this Court has been responded to in a language which this Court finds to be derogatory. It is not understood as to what Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, intends to say by appending a note that respondent No. 3 is "baseless". Initially, whenever a party approaches a Court, dominus litis is of that party. But subsequently, as already observed hereinabove, the memo of parties has to be maintained as it is, subject to modifications that may be made therein by virtue of judicial orders. The officer neither seems to be aware of legal nuances nor probably he has made an endeavour to seek legal opinion in this regard. Accordingly, before the appeal is heard on merit for admission, the officer is directed to remain present in person in the Court on 09.03.2023 to explain as to why ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:32:11 :::CIS the Court matters are being approached in such a callous manner.
.
List on 09.03.2023.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
March 02, 2023
(narender)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:32:11 :::CIS