Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP No.652 of 2010, & CMP(M) No.1374 of 2011 in CMPMO No.353 of 2008. Decided on: April 2, 2012. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sham Kishore s/o late Shri Ram Kishore, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, HP. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri Raman Khanna s/o late Shri A.C. Khanna, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. ……….Respondent. 2. Shri Jugal Kishore Khanna, s/o Shri Roop Kishore Khanna, r/o 15-D, Kamlanagar, Delhi. 3. Mrs. Shail Bhasin w/o Shri K.C. Bhasin, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. 4. Mrs. Viney Nanda, w/o Shri N.K. Nanda, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. 5. Mrs. Meenakashi Chaudhary, w/o Sh. Finder P. Chaudhary, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. 6. Shri R.N.Khanna, s/o Sh. H.Khanna, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. 7. Smt. Raj Malhotra, widow of Shri C.P.Malhotra, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. 8. Ms. Abha Suri, d/o late Shri C.P. Malhotra, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. 9. Ms. Gita Malhotra, d/o late Shri C.P. Malhotra, r/o Regal Building, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P. ……..Proforma Respondent. Applications under Section 151 CPC for restoration of CMPMO No.353 of 2006 and Under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for bringing on record the legal heirs of Jugal Kishore Khanna. Coram - 2 - The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. J.L. Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 9. Surinder Singh, J (oral): One Shri Raman Khanna filed a suit for seeking partition with respect to the suit property, wherein a preliminary decree was passed by this court way back in the year 1989 defining the shares of the parties. Sh. Munna Lal Bansal, a retired Chief Engineer was appointed a Local Commissioner for suggesting the mode of partition of the suit property by meets and bounds. He submitted his report on 25th April, 1991. Against it, objections were filed. In the meantime, an application was stated to have been filed under Order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent-plaintiff, but because of the increasing of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, the matter was transferred to the learned District Judge, Shimla, where it is still pending. - 3 - 2. In CMP(M) No.786 of 2008, vide order dated 8th May, 2008 this Court decided about the legal heirs of late Shri Sham Kishore Khanna and as to how the estate of Sham Kishore Khanna, his wife and his only minor son would be represented as they had died simultaneously in a road accident on the basis of legal presumption, it was held by this Court that minor will survive the elder. Since Smt. Yogesh Khanna was held to be the legal representative of deceased minor to represent the estate of the aforesaid deceased, she was ordered to be brought on record and notice was sent and served upon her, but despite service, she did not put in appearance, as such vide order dated 18.6.2010, CMPMO No.353 of 2006 was dismissed in default with the direction that learned trial Court will proceed with the matter and the stay order, issued shall automatically stand vacated. 3. Now the CMP No.652 of 2010 has been moved by Shri Jugal Kishore Khanna for restoration of the aforesaid CMPMO aforesaid. - 4 - Even he also died and another application (CMP(M) No.1374 of 2011 is moved on behalf of his sons Prabhat Khanna and Rohit Khanna to implead them as legal representatives of Shri Jogal Kishore Khanna. 4. Both the above petitions have been resisted and contested by the respondent, on the ground of maintainability. It is also submitted that so far Jugal Kishore Khanna is concerned, his legal representatives have already been brought on record before the learned Additional District Judge, where the proceedings are pending and as far as the present petition (CMP No.652 of 2010) is concerned, neither they nor their predecessor Shri Jogal Kishore Khanna had any locus-standi to apply for the restoration of the CMPMO. 5. Heard and gone through the record. 6. In the above facts situation, which is not disputed, said Smt. Yogesh Khanna was held to be the legal representatives of the deceased Master Chaitanaya Khanna to represent his estate, she was ordered to be - 5 - brought on record only for the purpose of CMPMO. No.353 of 2006 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the just exception. Thus, notice was issued to Smt. Yogesh Khanna, who stood duly served, but did not choose to put in appearance to contest the petition. Therefore, vide order dated 18.6.2010, the main petition was dismissed. Now Shri Jugal Kishore Khanna and his legal representatives have no locus-standi to move an application for restoration of the CMPMO No.353 of 2006 as by restoration of the above petition, no purpose is going to be served. In other words, it shall not serve any legal purpose even. Her share would remain intact without affecting the share of other co- sharers. 7. In view of the above, both these applications are dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge April 2, 2012. (Pds)