IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8894 of 2011-J. Decided on: October 14, 2011. Giano Devi. Vrs. S.D.M. Shimla & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG for respondent No. 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Annexure P-9, order passed by the first respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (Rural) is under challenge. The issue pertains to the request made by the second respondent for change of entry in the Pariwar Register. There is a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent as to whose name is liable to be entered in the Pariwar Register as the wife of late Amar Nath Sharma. It appears, the first respondent had issued notice and that the objection filed by the petitioner was not within 30 days time. Though the petitioner has offered a plausible explanation for the same, in the nature of the view we propose to take in this case, it is unnecessary to go into those aspects. On facts, it has come out that at the time of passing of Annexure P-9, order, the objection filed by the petitioner was before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. But the same was ignored only on the ground that the same was filed beyond 30 days. We do not find any justification or ground for ignoring the objection filed beyond 30 days, either in Annexure P- 7, notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or elsewhere. Once the objection filed by the petitioner was before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, at the time of passing the order, the same should have been looked into. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the private respondents since they will also be getting an opportunity otherwise before the first respondent. In that only view of the matter, Annexure P-9 is set aside. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 2 and pass fresh orders on merits, adverting to the contentions taken by both the sides. The petitioner will immediately produce a copy of this judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition before the first respondent and will also serve one copy each of the writ petition and judgment upon the second respondent. The Sub Divisional Magistrate will pass orders as above, within a period of four months. 2. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 14, 2011. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (karan/vs) Judge.