Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Naresh Bala – Appellant
Versus
Udey Parkash (deceased) through LRs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present petition arises out of the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby, an application filed by the defendant/applicant under the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against one Sh. Udey Prakash and Smt. Padmini Devi before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P.
3. As per the averments as made in the plaint, it has been averred that the defendants are successors and rulers of the Sirmaur estate who have got the exclusive ownership of Khasra No. 71, 72, 73, 75 alongwith other Khasra numbers vide partition mutation No. 6 dated 13.12.2014 duly entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. They are not residents of the State of H.P. and have no interest in the suit land, knowing fully that the suit land is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff on the spot. It is further averred that the defendants, on 14.10.2016, brought JCB machines and dispossessed the plaintiff, and started leveling and cutting the suit land i
Procedural rules serve to facilitate justice; allows for late admission of evidence if no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
The court established that a defendant must produce relevant documents at the time of the written statement and provide valid reasons for any subsequent applications to introduce documents; failure t....
Defendants' failure to show due diligence and timely filing of documents justifies dismissal of their applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and no grounds were shown for High Court intervent....
Point of Law : If procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to adversary party, Court must lean towards doing substantial justice.
Production of additional documents – Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose adjudication on merits of su....
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
