REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, AT SHIMLA ON THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022.

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) NO.827/2021 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) NO. 385/2020 BETWEEN:-

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

.…..PETITIONER/APPLICANT (BY MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)

AND

1. LAXMI NAND, S/O SH. VIJA NAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AVERI, POST OFFICE NOGLI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. (SINCE DECEASED)

…...RESPONDENT/NON-APPLICANT (MR. G.C. GUPTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. MEERA DEVI, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1)

2. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

…...PROFORMA RESPONDENT/NON-APPLICANT (BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDL. A.G. WITH MR. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER FOR R-2)

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) NO.850/2021 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) NO. 385/2020 BETWEEN:-

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

.…..PETITIONER/APPLICANT (BY MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)

AND

1. LAXMI NAND, S/O SH. VIJA NAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AVERI, POST OFFICE NOGLI, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. (SINCE DECEASED).

…...RESPONDENT/NON-APPLICANT (MR. G.C. GUPTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. MEERA DEVI, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1)

2. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, ANNI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

…...PROFORMA RESPONDENT/NON-APPLICANT (BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDL. A.G. WITH MR. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER FOR R-2)

RESERVED ON: 8.7.2022 ____________________________________________________________

This petition coming on for admission after notice this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

CMP(M) Nos. 827/2021 & 850/2021 in CMP (M)

No.385/2020 A short, but an interesting controversy has arisen in this case.

2 The Union of India has filed the review petitions against the judgment datetd 24.8.2017 passed by this Court in RFA No. 265/2005 and RFA No. 266/2005. These review petitions were filed on 7.9.2019, but remained under objections and were formally registered after removing the objections on 19.6.2020. However, after the judgment had been rendered in the aforesaid RFAs but before the review petitions could be filed, respondent No.1 Laxmi Nand in RFA No. 265/2005 died on 27.6.2018. This fact, according to the applicant/petitioner, came to its notice only when the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Laxmi Nand filed an application for release of the amount on 30.4.2021. It is thereafter that the petitioner/applicant has filed the instant applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent Laxmi Nand after condoning the delay in filing the same.

3 According to the applicant, the application .for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.1 Laxmi Nand is within time if the period is computed and calculated from the date of knowledge.

4 The legal representative fof the respondent has contested the applications by filing reply(ies), wherein it has been averred that the applications without making a proper prayer for setting asidre abatement are not competent and maintainable and therefore, the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent cannot be brought on recoCrd.

5 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material place on record.

6 Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure i(for short, the Code) applies to cases of the death of defendants, who died during the proceedings and not in respect, who died prior to the institution of the proceedings. On the other hand, Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code reads as under:-

“10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.—(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plain.tiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and