Disposed¶15

Neem Devi v. Savitri Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Aug 2025CMPMO/85/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abatement and closure of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC proceedings on death of the respondent; CMPMO No. 85 of 2010; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Smt. Neema Devi v. Smt. Savitri Devi; observation that closure does not affect RSA No. 618 of 2007 pending on merits; alleged flouting of Court order and creation of third-party interest in suit property.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: Order 39 Rule 2A proceedings abated and closed on the death of respondent Smt. Savitri Devi, with an observation that the closure shall not affect adjudication of RSA No. 618 of 2007 on merits; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶15

Neem Devi Vs Savitri Devi — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:29051

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No. 85 of 2010 Decided on : 27.08.2025

¶4

Smt. Neema Devi. Smt. Savitri Devi.

¶5

…Petitioner Versus …Respondent

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner	: M/s Chander Narayan Singh and Anshul Gandhi, Advocates.
For the respondent	: Stated to be expired.
	M/s Mukul Sood and Rahul
	Gathania, Advocates.

¶8

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶9

When this case was taken up for consideration, the Court stands apprised that Smt. Savitri Devi, against whom orders were passed in the proceedings initiated under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, has since died. 2. Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel, who was earlier representing deceased Smt. Savitri Devi, states that as the impugned act was personal, now the cause stands frustrated with her death.

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

¶12

2025:HHC:29051

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as Smt. Savitri Devi had flouted the Court order and had created third party interest in the suit property, it be observed that the closure of these proceedings shall not have any adverse effect on the other proceedings, which are being contested by the parties on merit, which are pending adjudication before this Court in terms of RSA No. 618 of 2007.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that Smt. Savitri Devi is since dead, obviously these proceedings have abated and are closed as such. However, it is observed that closure of these proceedings, obviously shall not have any bearing, as far as adjudication of the RSA on merit is concerned.

¶15

The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶16

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶17

August 27, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)

Neem Devi v. Savitri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neem Devi v. Savitri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Vs Pritam Singh and Others

Asha Vs Narain Dass

Sunil Kumar Vs Pritam Singh and Others

Naresh Kumar (since deceased) through his LRs Vs Kanta Devi (since deceased) through hsi LRs

Devi Dass Vs Tula Ram

Bhagwati Devi Vs Swarna Devi and Others