IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.558 of 2022 Decided on: 20.12.2024 __________________________________________________________

Jia Lal ...Petitioner Versus JayotiLal and Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. D.S. Nainta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

Respondents No.3 to 7 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.12.2022. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner-Jia Lal, being the plaintiff, has come up before this Court, seeking the following prayer:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for, this petition may kindly be allowed, and the order dated 24.9.2022 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Rohru in application No.172-6 of 2022 in Civil Suit No.104-1 of 2017 (14/2017) titled as JiaLal Versus JyotiLal vide which the right to lead evidence on behalf of the petitioner has been closed may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner/plaintiff may kindly be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, in the interest of justice and fair play.”

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

FACTUAL MATRIX LEADING TO INSTANT PETITION:

2. Case set up by Learned Vice Counsel, is that petitioner-Jia Lal, being the plaintiff, filed a Civil Suit No.104-1 of 2017, before Learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla [HP], [referred to as ‘Learned Trial Court’], against the respondents-defendants herein, for possession on the basis of title qua the land comprising in Khata No.23 min, Khatauni No.50 min, Khasra No.1141/1, area measuring 00-09-50 hectares, situated in Revenue Chak Gawna, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla [HP] and for recovery of mesne profit at the rate of Rs.300/- per day from the date of filing of present suit, in terms of plaint dated 18.08.2017, [Annexure P-1]. The averments in the plaint, were responded to by the respondents- defendants herein, by filing Written Statement dated 18.12.2017, Annexure P-2. Based on pleadings, Learned Trial Court framed issues on 26.09.2019, evidence of two PWs, namely, Chuni Lal and Surat Ram was recorded. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for leading further PWs evidence on

16.12.2019, 13.03.2020, 14.09.2020, 11.11.2020 and on 15.02.2021, PWs Evidence was closed by the petitioner-plaintiff herein. After closing of PWs Evidence, the case was listed for defendant witnesses’ [DWs] evidence and [DWs Evidence was closed] on 30.03.2021 and thereafter the matter was fixed for arguments by Learned Trial Court.

2(i). It is at the stage of arguments, that petitioner-plaintiff herein, moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 29.07.2022, [AnnexureP-3], with the prayer to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to lead his own evidence, on the ground, that petitioner-plaintiff came to know on 28.07.2022 that he had not recorded his own evidence. The respondents-defendants filed a reply dated 05.08.2022 [Annexure P-4], wherein, plea of the petitioner-plaintiff was denied altogether and such prayer cannot be granted, at this stage. In the above background, the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for permission to lead his own evidence, [Annexure P-3], which was registered as CMA No.172-6 of 2022 [267 of 2022] was dismissed by Learned Trial Court, on 24.09.2022, [Annexure P-5], [referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’]. The operative part of the Impugned Order passed by Learned Trial Court reads as under:-

“I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. the present application has been moved invoking the inherent parts of the court under Section 151 CPC with the permission to allow the applicant to record his statement. It is worth to mention that the case has been listed for advancing the arguments when the present application has been moved. Upon the p