$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 9th October, 2025 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 339/2022 & I.A. 14209/2022 I.A. 6905/2025 KANHIAYA LAL AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Amit Jain Advs. versus SUBHASH CHANDBR AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Kunal Raj, Ms. Charu Khandelwal, Advs. for R-2 (UOI) + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 362/2022 & I.A. 13902/2022 I.A. 6917/2025 KANHIAYA LAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Amit Jain Advs. versus SUBHASH C. GOEL & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 372/2022 & I.A. 13899/2022 I.A. 6907/2025 KANHIAYA LAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Amit Jain Advs. versus SUBHASH CHANDER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Mr. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs. for R-2 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 385/2022 & I.A. 13900/2022 I.A. 6906/2025 KANHIAYA LAL AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Amit Jain Advs. versus SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Mr. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs. for R-2 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 394/2022 & I.A. 13901/2022 I.A. 6908/2025 KANHIAYA LAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Amit Jain Advs. versus SUBHASH C. GOEL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Mr. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs. for R-2 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 413/2022 & I.A. 21833/2025 I.A. 21834/2025 KANHIAYA LAL .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Amit Jain Advs. versus SUBHASH C GOEL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Mr. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs. for R-2 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 430/2022 & I.A. 13903/2022 I.A. 6916/2025 KANHIAYA LAL AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Advs. versus SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Mr. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs. for R-2 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 520/2022 & I.A. 13811/2022 I.A. 6870/2025 KANHIYA LAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Sambhav Rana, Advs. versus SUBHASH C GOEL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Advocates for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA % J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: C.O. (COMM. IPD-TM) 339/2022 I.A. 14209/2022 (under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, 1908, to implead the Legal Heirs of Applicant/Petitioner No.1) I.A. 6905/2025 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, for condonation in filing I.A. 14209/2022) 1. The Petitioners are the Legal heirs of Lt. Panchhi Lal alias Lt. Pancham Lal. Petitioner No.1/Kanhaiya Lal (since deceased) and Respondent No.1 No.1/Subhash Chander are the sons of Lt. Panchhi Lal. Petitioner No. 2/Anil Kumar (since deceased) and Petitioner 3/Sunil Kumar are grandsons of Lt. Panchhi Lal and sons of Petitioner No. 1/ Kanhaiya Lal, respectively. Genesis of the dispute 2. The case set up by the Petitioners is as follows: 2.1. In 1952, Lt. Panchhi Lal established the business of manufacturing Petha and Dalmoth at Agra as a sole proprietorship, which was subsequently converted into a partnership under the name PANCHHI PETHA STORE, with himself and his two sons1 as partners. 2.2. The partners applied for registration of the trademark PANCHHI KA PETHA AUR DALMOTH on 30.07.1971 bearing no.273943 in class 30, which was thereafter granted. 2.3. Shri. Panchhi Lal passed away on 26.03.1975. Thereafter, a family settlement was executed on 23.06.1982 between Petitioner No.1/Shri Kanhaiya Lal, as Karta of his HUF [including his sons Petitioner No.2/Shri Anil Kumar (since deceased), and Petitioner No.3/Shri Sunil Kumar, who survives], and Respondent No.1/Shri Subhash Chander, as Karta of his HUF. 2.4. As per the family settlement, Petitioner No.1 and his HUF would carry on the business of manufacturing Petha, Dalmoth, etc., at shop No. 1/44, Upadhyay Market, Hari Parwat, Agra; whereas Respondent No.1 and his HUF would carry on the business from Shops No. 15/390 and 15/391, Noori Darwaja, Agra. 2.5. The family settlement recorded that the businesses would be carried out under the trade mark/trade name PANCHHI, whilst maintaining a distance of 1 (one) kilometre between the aforesaid shops. It further stipulated that only one shop may be established by the parties, outside the said radius of 1 kilometre. 2.6. The list of shops opened by the Petitioners has been given in paragraph ‘K’ of the petition, and the sales turnover has been given in paragraph ‘M’ of the petition. 2.7. It is stated that the parties mutually co-existed while carrying out their businesses peacefully. However, the issue arose when the Petitioners applied for the registration of the mark PANCHHI bearing no. 14117647 in class 30. It is stated that the Respondent No.1 filed a notice of opposition against the said TM application. From the perusal of the Notice of Opposition and the evidence filed under Rule 50 by Respondent No. 1, the Petitioners came to know that Respondent No. 1 had clandestinely obtained multiple trademark registrations of the mark PANCHHI in various classes, to the exclusion of the Petitioners. This prompted the Petitioners to file a rectification petition challenging the said registrations on 16.06.2013 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’), which was subsequently transferred to this Court in March 2022, following the abolition of the IPAB. 3. The subject matter of the captioned applications is impleadment of the legal heirs of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2. It is a matter of record that Petitioner No.1/Kanhaiya Lal expired on 19.05.2021 and that Petitioner No.2/Anil Kumar expired on 21.11.2017. 3.1. I.A. No. 14209/2022 has been filed seeking leave to implead the Legal Heirs of Petitioner No.1/Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal and Petitioner No.2/Shri Anil Kumar. 3.2. I.A. No. 6905/2025 has been filed seeking condonation of the delay of 352 days in filing the aforesaid application seeking impleadment of the Legal Heirs of the Petitioners. 4. It is stated that Petitioner No. 1 left behind a registered Will dated 01.10.2019 bequeathing his rights in the subject trademark in favour of his son, Petitioner No. 3, and his grandsons, i.e., Mohit Goyal, Ankit Goyal, and Gaurav Goyal. 4.1. The details of the natural legal heirs were provided in the written note dated 11.09.2025, which includes his wife, his son (Petitioner No. 3), and the legal heirs of deceased Petitioner No. 2. 4.2. It is thus pleaded that the existing Petitioner No. 3 (son) and the three grandsons who are the legal heirs as per the registered Will be brought on record to represent the estate of Petitioner No. 1 in these proceedings. 5. With respect to Petitioner No. 2, it is stated that he left behind his wife, a son, and three daughters as his natural legal heirs; however, all the legal heirs have filed an affidavit authorising the son, Mohit Goyal, to represent the estate of Petitioner No. 2 and his interest in these proceedings. It is therefore prayed that Mohit Goyal be brought on record as the legal heir. 6. It is stated that Petitioner No. 3 be arrayed as Petitioner No. 1 and the three grandsons, i.e., Mohit Goyal, Ankit Goyal, and Gaurav Goyal, be impleaded as Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. 7. The family tree provided by the Petitioners during arguments on 11.09.2025 is extracted hereunder: * It is observed that in the above extract, the date of death of Petitioner No. 2 has been incorrectly recorded as 21.07.2017, instead of the correct date, i.e., 21.11.2017. Also, Petitioner No. 2 has also been incorrectly referred to as Petitioner No. 3. Submissions by the Petitioner 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner No.3/Applicant states that they have filed I.A. No. 14209/2022 under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC on 03.08.2022, which is 352 days beyond the statutory period of limitation of filing an application for impleadment of legal heirs of Petitioner No. 1 (who expired on 19.05.2021). Through this application, they have sought to implead the Legal heirs of Lt. Kanhaiya Lal as per the registered will dated 01.10.2019 as Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. 8.1. He states that, however, since an objection of delay was raised by Respondent No.1, a separate application I.A. 6905/2025 was filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the impleadment application. 8.2. He states that the delay so caused was unintentional and was due to the unfortunate demise of Petitioner No.1.The Petitioner’s death caused a period of grief and administrative responsibilities for the legal heirs, including obtaining the death certificate, probate, and other relevant documents. The legal heirs required this time to settle the affairs of the deceased Petitioner and gather the necessary documentation to establish their locus standi. 8.3. He states that the delay is therefore attributable to the exceptional and unforeseen circumstances of the Petitioner No. 1’s demise and not due to any lack of diligence or intent to delay the proceedings. 8.4. He states that Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal had executed and registered a Will dated 01.10.2019, in terms of which the proposed parties are sought to be impleaded as his legal heirs in this present petition. 8.5. He states that the grandsons Mohit Goyal, Ankit Goyal, and Gaurav Goyal have an independent right to maintain a rectification petition against Respondent No. 1 by virtue of Clause ‘4’ of the family settlement, and bringing them on record in these proceedings would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 8.6. He states that Petitioner No. 3 is the son of the deceased and therefore, the estate of Petitioner No. 1 was already represented and the proceedings have not abated qua Petitioner No. 1. 8.7. He states that, similarly with respect to Petitioner No. 2, the application seeks to bring on record his son Mohit Goyal, who is a legal representative of both deceased Petitioner No. 2 and deceased Petitioner No. 1. Moreover, Mohit Goyal has an independent right to maintain the petition by virtue of Clause ‘4’ of the family settlement. He states that the delay in bringing on record the legal representatives of Petitioner No. 2 may be condoned. He further clarifies that this application is being supported by Mohit Goyal as well, and he has the necessary instructions to appear on behalf of Mohit Goyal. 8.8. He also relies upon the fact that since it was a family dispute, parties were referred to court-mandated mediation between 05.02.2024 to 14.08.2024, and this also contributed to the delay in filing I.A. 6905/2025. Submissions by Respondent No.1 9. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1, submits that I.A. 14209/2022 has been filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, as there is a delay of over 370 days since the death of Petitioner No. 1 (on 19.05.2021) and 1648 days since the death of Petitioner No. 2 (on 21.11.2017). 9.1. He states that Petitioner No.3 filed the application seeking condonation of delay belatedly on 28.01.2025; hence, there has been a total delay of 1198 and 2573 days concerning Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, when reckoned from the date of death. 9.2. He states that the Petitioners continued to contest and pursue other legal proceedings between the parties before this Court and several other trademark-related proceedings in respect of the mark PANCHHI/PANCHHI PETHA. However, they failed to inform the IPAB or this Court at the relevant time of the demise of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2. 9.3. Furthermore, the application for condonation of delay filed by Petitioner No.3 fails to provide any proper or plausible explanation for the delay. The said application was filed belatedly on 09.01.2025, which appears to be nothing more than an afterthought, coming only after Respondent No.1 had filed its reply to the impleadment application and raised an objection of limitation on 11.11.2024. 9.4. Moreover, for reasons best known to the Petitioners, the delay in filing I.A. 14209/2022 was stated to be 353 days instead of 1648 days with respect to Petitioner No.2 and 370 days with respect to Petitioner No.1. 9.5. Petitioner No.3 seeks to justify the delay on the ground that it allegedly took time to obtain the Legal Representative certificate of Petitioner No.1. However, this explanation is factually inaccurate, as the said certificate was, in fact, made available to them on 29.12.2021. The deliberate delay, without any satisfactory explanation, undermines the credibility of their plea and does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation under settled principles of law. 9.6. It is stated that another reason given in the application for condonation of delay was that it took time for them to obtain probate of the registered Will dated 01.10.2019; however, the same has not been placed on record at all. 9.7. It is stated that the Legal heirs have failed to implead themselves within the prescribed period of time and have slept on their rights. The mandatory period has already expired; hence, the petition is automatically abated against the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, the cause of action does not survive. 9.8. Reliance has been placed upon several judgments filed under the cover of the index dated 16.09.2025, with specific reliance on DSGMC v. Jagmogan Singh2 and Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board v. Ors.3 to contend that the application deserves to be dismissed in view of the inordinate delay. Court’s Findings 10. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 11. The Petitioners No.1 and 2, unfortunately, expired on 19.05.2021 and on 21.11.2017, respectively. Since no application for impleadment of the legal heirs was filed, the petition stood abated qua the Petitioner No. 2 by operation of law upon expiry of the limitation period. However, since Petitioner No. 3 is the legal heir of Petitioner No. 1 and was already on record, these proceedings did not abate qua Petitioner No. 1. 12. It is a matter of record that the application being I.A. No.14209/2022 for impleading the legal heirs of deceased Petitioner No. 2 was filed on 03.08.2022, and no specific prayer for setting aside the abatement of the petition qua the deceased Petitioner No. 2 was pleaded. However, this Court is satisfied that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mithailal Dalsanagar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini 4, that the action of the Petitioner No.3 in filing I.A. No. 14209/2022 shall be construed as also praying for setting aside the abatement of the petition qua Petitioner No. 2. “8. Inasmuch as the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of abatement has to be construed strictly. On the other hand, the prayer for setting aside an abatement and the dismissal consequent upon an abatement, have to be considered liberally. A simple prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record without specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement. So also a prayer for setting aside abatement as regards one of the plaintiffs can be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement of the suit in its entirety. Abatement of suit for failure to move an application for bringing the legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation is automatic and a specific order dismissing the suit as abated is not called for. Once the suit has abated as a matter of law, though there may not have been passed on record a specific order dismissing the suit as abated, yet the legal representatives proposing to be brought on record or any other applicant proposing to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record would seek the setting aside of an abatement. A prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record, if allowed, would have the effect of setting aside the abatement as the relief of setting aside abatement though not asked for in so many words is in effect being actually asked for and is necessarily implied. Too technical or pedantic an approach in such cases is not called for. 9. The courts have to adopt a justice-oriented approach dictated by the uppermost consideration that ordinarily a litigant ought not to be denied an opportunity of having a lis determined on merits unless he has, by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to misconduct, disentitled himself from seeking the indulgence of the court. The opinion of the trial Judge allowing a prayer for setting aside abatement and his finding on the question of availability of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Order 22 and of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deserves to be given weight, and once arrived at would not normally be interfered with by superior jurisdiction. 10. In the present case, the learned trial Judge found sufficient cause for condonation of delay in moving the application and such finding having been reasonably arrived at and based on the material available, was not open for interference by the Division Bench. In fact, the Division Bench has not even reversed that finding; rather the Division Bench has proceeded on the reasoning that the suit filed by three plaintiffs having abated in its entirety by reason of the death of one of the plaintiffs, and then the fact that no prayer was made by the two surviving plaintiffs as also by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff for setting aside of the abatement in its entirety, the suit could not have been revived. In our opinion, such an approach adopted by the Division Bench verges on too fine a technicality and results in injustice being done. There was no order in writing passed by the court dismissing the entire suit as having abated. The suit has been treated by the Division Bench to have abated in its entirety by operation of law. For a period of ninety days from the date of death of any party the suit remains in a state of suspended animation. And then it abates. The converse would also logically follow. Once the prayer made by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff for setting aside the abatement as regards the deceased plaintiff was allowed, and the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff came on record, the constitution of the suit was rendered good; it revived and the abatement of the suit would be deemed to have been set aside in its entirety even though there was no specific prayer made and no specific order of the court passed in that behalf.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The Court has also perused Clause ‘4’ of the Family Settlement Agreement dated 23.06.1982. A plain reading of the Agreement makes it abundantly clear that not only the sons of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.1, but also their male descendants, were conferred the independent right to carry on the business of manufacturing Dalmoth and Petha under the trade name/trademark PANCHHI. By virtue of the Agreement, the legal heirs of the Petitioners were vested with independent rights in the subject trademark, and consequently, they also hold independent rights in the present proceedings. This legal position is not contested by Respondent No. 1. The relevant portion of the agreement is extracted as under: “4. ……................................ We the second and third party and our sons and legal heirs will use the name of M/s Panchi Petha Store, given by above-named Sh. Pancham Lal alias Panchi Lal for one shop each in District Agra and presently second party is possessing the shop at Hariparvat Upadhyaya Market and third party is possessing the shop at Nooridarwaja. The distance between the business centers of both will remain one kilometer and also outside the radius of this one kilometer, both the parties and their sons can run only one shop each in the above-said name. In case, any other outsider, except the above-named both the parties, use the above-said name of Panchi Petha store (which is the registered trade mark and the name registered under Copyright Act) then both the parties and their sons etc, will jointly and severally, as the case may be, will oppose the same strongly. …………………………..” 14. In view of the aforesaid Clause ‘4’ of the Family Settlement, Mohit Goyal, Ankit Goyal, and Gaurav Goyal, the proposed Petitioners have an independent right to maintain a rectification petition, this position is again not contested by Respondent No. 1. Their prayer for impleadment can be considered even on the anvil of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. In terms of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, this Court possesses the discretion to direct the addition of any party whose presence is necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the petition. The proposed Petitioners can thus be permitted to join these proceedings to avoid multiplicity of proceedings challenging the trademark registrations obtained by Respondent No. 1. 15. Petitioner No. 3 is the natural legal heir of deceased Petitioner No. 1 and is already on record. In addition, Mohit Goyal, Ankit Goyal, and Gaurav Goyal seek impleadment as legal heirs of Petitioner No. 1 on the basis of the registered Will dated 01.10.2019. There is no opposition by the natural legal heirs of Petitioner No. 1 to the aforesaid Will dated 01.10.2019. As noted above, due to the presence of Petitioner No. 3, these proceedings have not abated qua the estate of Petitioner No. 1, and therefore, impleadment of Mohit Goyal, Ankit Goyal, and Gaurav Goyal as additional legal representatives will not in any manner prejudice Respondent No. 1. 16. Petitioner No. 2’s legal heirs have agreed that the estate of Petitioner No. 2 will be represented by his son, Mohit Goyal. Since the same Mohit Goyal is also a legal representative of Petitioner No. 1, permitting him to represent the estate of Petitioner No. 2 for its claim in these proceedings, will not cause any prejudice to Respondent No. 1. Moreover, as noted above, as per Clause ‘4’ of the family settlement, Mohit Goyal has an independent right to maintain the petition. 17. Considering that Petitioner No. 1 expired on 19.05.2021, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Re [Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, Order dated 10th January, 2022]5, the limitation period for filing the application for bringing on record legal heirs stood extended till 28.05.2022. The present I.A. 14209/2022, filed on 03.08.2022, cannot be said to suffer from undue delay. However, in case of Petitioner No. 2, he died on 21.11.2017 and the application has been filed with an inordinate delay on 03.08.2022, which, in the facts of this case, is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/-; to be paid within two (2) weeks to the Respondent No. 1. This delay has been condoned keeping in view the observations made by Supreme Court at paragraph ‘9’ in Mithailal Dalsanagar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (supra) directing the Court to adopt a justice-oriented approach, which contemplates determination of disputes on merits rather than dismissing petitions on defaults. In the facts of this case, this Court does not find that the legal heirs of Petitioner No. 1 are guilty of misconduct disentitling them to seek indulgence of this Court to condone the delay. The factum of the parties exploring mediation is also a relevant factor and has been taken into consideration to condone the delay. Consequently, the abatement of the petition qua Petitioner No. 2 is also set aside. 18. In the peculiar facts of this case noted above, the judgments of DSGMC v. Jagmogan Singh (supra) and Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board v. Ors. (supra) relied upon by Respondent No. 1 are inapplicable, as Petitioner No. 3 was already on record and Mohit Goyal has an independent right to seek impleadment in these proceedings. 19. Therefore, the legal heirs, namely, Mohit Goyal as Petitioner No. 2, Ankit Goyal as Petitioner No. 3, and Gaurav Goyal as Petitioner No. 4, are impleaded. Further, Sunil Kumar, who was originally Petitioner No. 3, shall become Petitioner No. 1. 20. Mohit Goyal has been impleaded as the legal representative of both deceased Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as well as in his independent capacity as per Clause ‘4’ of the family settlement. So also, Ankit Goyal and Gaurav Goyal have been impleaded as the legal representative of deceased Petitioner No. 1, as well as in their independent capacity, as per Clause ‘4’ of the family settlement. 21. The Petitioners are directed to file an amended memo of parties within two (2) weeks. 22. With the aforesaid directions, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 13902/2022 and I.A. 6917/2025 in C.O(COMM.IPD-TM) 362/2022 I.A. 13899/2022 and I.A. 6907/2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 372/2022 I.A. 13900/2022 and I.A. 6906/2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 385/2022 I.A. 13901/2022 and I.A. 6908/2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 394/2022 I.A. 21833/2025 and I.A. 21834/2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 413/2022 I.A. 13903/2022 and I.A. 6916/2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 430/2022 I.A. 13811/2022 and I.A. 6870/2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 520/2022 23. Identical applications for impleadment of the legal heirs of Petitioner No.1/Kanhaiya Lal (since deceased), and Petitioner No. 2/Anil Kumar (since deceased), have been filed in these seven (7) rectification petitions. 24. No separate arguments were addressed in these applications. The parties addressed common arguments in all these applications. 25. These applications as well are allowed for the reasons recorded in C.O(COMM.IPD-TM) 339/2022; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- by the Petitioners in each rectification petition to Respondent No. 1 within two (2) weeks. Thus, in all Petitioners will pay a sum of Rs. 1,75 ,000/- as costs in these seven (7) petitions. 26. The Petitioners shall file an amended memo of parties in each of these seven (7) petitions within two (2) weeks. 27. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 339/2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 362/2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 372/2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 385/2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 394/2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 413/2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 430/2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 520/2022 28. List on 03.02.2026. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA (JUDGE) OCTOBER 9, 2025/aa 1 Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 2 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5423 [paragraph nos. 20 to 28] 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 [paragraph 121] 4 (2003)10 SCC 691 5 (2022) 3 SCC 117 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 339/2022 and connected matters Page 2 of 2