Narinder Kumar And Others vs . Rikhi Ram (Deceased)
2023 Latest Caselaw 16977 HP

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.

The Registry raised an objection that the name of

appellant no. 2(a) is mentioned in the memo of parties, whereas,

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

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

CMP No. 11784 of 2023 is pending for disposal. Since, the question

whether the estate of appellant no. 2(a) is represented by

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

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.

Issue notice to the non-applicants/respondents

returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within one week.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

October 20, 2023

(saurav pathania)