Himachal Pradesh High Court
Narinder Kumar And Others vs . Rikhi Ram (Deceased) on 20 October, 2023
Narinder Kumar and others vs. Rikhi Ram (deceased) .
through LRs and others.
CMP No.13179 of 2023 Order reserved on 09.10.2023 20.10.2023 Present: Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, for the appellants.
of The Registry raised an objection that the name of appellant no. 2(a) is mentioned in the memo of parties, whereas, rt she had died on 08.05.2019 as per the memo. She is deceased and has been wrongly arrayed as a party. Another objection was raised that proper procedure was not adopted to bring on record the legal representative of deceased respondent no. 1, 3 and 7. The learned counsel replied that Suresh Bala Sharma died on 08.05.2019 and her estate is duly represented by the appellants no.2 (b), (c) and (d). An application has been filed separately in this behalf for permission to file the appeal. Her name cannot be deleted from the memo of parties. Further, it has been stated that respondents No. 1, 3 and 7 had died after the decision by the learned First Appellate Court. An application seeking permission to file an appeal has been filed. The Registry responded that affidavit is required to be filed under Chapter 7 Rule I of the High Court of H.P. Appellate Side Rules.
Heard.
It is apparent from the memo of parties recorded in the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court that the name of Rajinder Kumar was mentioned as one of the appellants. The ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:44:53 :::CIS memo of parties in RSA No.471 of 2005 shows that the names of .
Suresh Bala, Sanjana, Sameera and Lalit Sharma have been reflected as legal representatives of appellant no.2. The record of RSA No.471 of 2005 further shows that appellant no. 2(a) is stated to have died and an application for deletion of her name being of CMP No. 11784 of 2023 is pending for disposal. Since, the question whether the estate of appellant no. 2(a) is represented by rt appellants no. 2(b), (c) and (d) is still to be decided; therefore, it will not be proper to delete her name without an order of the Court. Doing so can lead to conflicting orders because in the present case, if the name is deleted and it is held in RSA No.471 of 2005, that the estate of appellant No.2(a) is not adequately represented, this will create an incongruity. Therefore, the name of appellant no. 2(a) is required to be reflected till the order of the Court deciding this question.
An application has been filed on behalf of the legal representatives of appellant no. 2-Rajinder Kumar to file the appeal. It has also been mentioned in para 6 of the application that the appeal be heard and decided along with RSA No. 471 of 2005. Legal heirs of Rikhi Ram respondent no. 1, Het Ram respondent no.3 and Ram Chander respondent no.7 be impleaded as parties in the appeal. This application is duly supported by an affidavit. Therefore, there is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Chapter-7 Rule 1 of the H.P. High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1997 because the Rules contemplate that the filing of ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:44:53 :::CIS an affidavit containing the averments regarding the death of the .
parties. Since, in the present case, the averments are duly supported by an affidavit, hence, the requirement is sufficiently complied with. Thus, the objections raised by the Registry are overruled.
of Issue notice to the non-applicants/respondents returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within one week.
rt (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge October 20, 2023 (saurav pathania) ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:44:53 :::CIS