CMPMO No.553 of 2024

Date of Decision : 17.12.2025

Bahadur Singh and others

…… Petitioners

Versus

Dharmi Devi and others

……Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?, IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA No

For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate.

Bipin Ch ander Negi, Judge (oral )

The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against impugned order dated 12.08.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, an application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, in Civil Suit No.109 of 2014, whereby the aforesaid application filed by the present petitioners/defendants for filing additional

written statement has been disallowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings

and the impugned order.

3. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the present respondents. The same decreed on 28.02.2022. Appeal against the same

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, it came to light that one Hira Singh, original defendant No.2 in the suit had died on 22.06.2019. On account of the same, judgment and decree dated 28.02.2022 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court foHr bringing on record the legal heirs of original defendant No.2-Hira Singh.

4. Post remand of the matter to the fTrial Court, an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of original defendant No.2 was allowed on 02.04.2022. In furtherance thereof, present petitioners No.4, 5 and 6 were brought on record. Subsequentr thereto, they moved an application for filing an additional written statement.

5. In the said application, it was submitted that earlier the written statement haCd been filed by one Bahadur Singh on behalf of the defendants without consulting the defendants and hence they intended to file an addhitional written statement. Reply thereto was filed. Objections in the reply gfiled thereto primarily pertained to the application being not maintainable and being barred by law. Besides the aforesaid, it was further averred that in RSA No.409 (408) of 1998, decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.09.2010, it had been held that the present applicants/defendants/ petitioners are mortgagees in possession of Khasra No.555 & 732 (suit land). The said decision it was averred has now attained finality. Other than the aforesaid, it has been submitted that after the death of Hira Singh, his interests were duly represented by the other defendants in the suit.

6. The suit, in the case at hand, had been filed for possession of the land comprised in Kh./Kh. No.48/157 and 158, Khasra Nos.555, 732 measuring 4-11 Bighas, situated in Mauja Bella, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, under Sections 5 & 6 of the H.P. Debt Reduction Act. In the said suit, deceased defendant No.2-predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners No.4 to 6 was duly represented by a counsel who had been duly authorized by an appropriate power of attorney signed by aHll the defendants on 07.05.2015. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the Trial Court had found no merit in the submission off the present petitioners that earlier the written statement was filed by one Bahadur Singh on behalf of the defendants without consulting them. The aforesaid sole contention raised before the Trial Court is given upr/not pressed.

7. The provisions applicable, in the case at hand, are Order 22 Rule 4(2) and Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 22 Rule

4(2) of the CCivil Procedure Code reads as follows:-

“4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.—(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone or a sole defendant or