2025:HHC:19367 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.112 of 2018 Reserved on: 05.06.2025 Decided on: 23.06.2025 Ashok Kumar Sood (deceased) through LRs & others ...Appellants Versus Rajesh Kumar Sood(deceased)through LRs& others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the appellants: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ruchirangad Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for respondents No.1(i), 1(ii) and 1(iv).

Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate, for respondents No.1(iii) and 5.

Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants/respondents.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) against the judgment dated 04.12.2017 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.22-P/XIII/2003, whereby the judgment dated 08.09.2003 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Execution Petition No.24/86 has been affirmed.

2. The appeal has been admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law vide order dated

10.07.2018:

“1. Whether the Ld. Courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction in adjudicating the Notice under Form 40 Appendix (E) contemplated under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure in law and procedure as also in term of the order dated 08.08.2003 passed in Civil Revisions 65, 66, 67 and 68 of

2003respectively?

2. Whether the Ld. Courts below are justified in law in adjudication and confirming the issues, which have attained finality in the previous proceedings as to whether the same were barred under Order 21 Rule 102 of CPC?

3. Whether it were open to the obstructionists as also the legal heirs of the original judgment debtors to take such objections which stood adjudicated in various previous proceedings as also not available in law and contrary to the revenue record which stood rectified in 1993 which had attained finality and whether it was open for the Ld. Courts below to open the same and ignored such record which has attained finality and return such findings which were preserved the law and record?

4. Whether the findings of both the Ld. Courts below as to the co-ownership of the obstructionist are perverse in law and record ignoring the decision of the Ld. Collector dated 18-07-1991 and affirmed in review order dated 11-03-1996 against which no further appeal was preferred by the JD?

5. Whether the Ld. Court below as also the Appellate Court would be justified in reopening the entire issues on merits and trying as a suit in term of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97, Notice under Form 40 Appendix (E) and ignoring all previous litigations, suits, replies and objections taken in the past?”

3. The background facts of the case are as under:

3.1 Ram Sarup and Amrik Chand, both sons of Lala Chuni Lal entered into an agreement to get all their pending disputes in respect of businesses and properties decided by arbitration. Their paternal uncle Jagat Ram was appointed as Arbitrator. Jagat Ram pronounced the award dated 10.12.1965. It pertained to many pending disputes inter se Ram Sarup and Amrik Chand, however, for the adjudication of instant matter, paragraph 6 of the award needs notice as under:

“ 6. Both the parties have other movable and immovable property in their joint ownership and individual ownership. The parties would separately execute regular partition deed in accordance with law on the stamp paper. But I think necessary that this dispute should also be settled. I, therefore, decide that out of the land owned by the parties comprised in Khasra No. 160 situated in Tika and Mauza, Banghiar Khas Tehsil Palampur, 18 marlas will fall to the share of Shri Amrik Chand party no.2 (on this land measur