IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 705 of 2023 Decided on: 12.08.2025 Ram Chand … Petitioner Versus Sh. Shyam Sunder Mahant (since doeceased)

through legal representatives Smt. Meera and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with M/s Sana Rana and Tamanna Sharma, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c).

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following Hreliefs:-

“a). To call for the record of the case pertaining to the Civil Suit No. 259 of 2011 titled as Shyam Sunder Mahant Vs. Ram Chand pending before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Kullu District Kullu and after examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexures P-6), the same be pleased to quash and set aside.

b). After setting aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-P-6), to allow the application moved by the

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

petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Annexure P-4), and direHcting the Ld. court to appoint a handwriting expert for seeking opinion as to the admitted signatures from the difsputed signatures.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 17.10.2023, in terms whereof, an application filed under Serction 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the petitioner/defendant stood dismissed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impuCgned order is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the spirit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and gthus dismissed the application without any due application of judicial mind. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court that the intent of the petitioner was to prolong the case by filing the application, are incorrect findings and as the filing of the application was necessitated in light of the averments therein, the rejection thereof is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments to strengthen his arguments:-

(i) Alamgir vs. State (NCT, Delhi) AIR 2003, Supreme Court

282;

(ii) Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and others, (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583;

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that as there is no perversity in the order passed by learned Trial Court and the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by passing a speaking andt cogent order, the same calls for no interference and the petition be thus dismissed.

5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents and carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with t he petition.

6. The application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is appended with the petition as Annexure P-4. It is mentioned in the application that the plaintiff was working as a money lender and on 06.12.2008, the defendant borrowed Rs.3.00 Lac from the plaintiff and to this effect, an agreement was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In terms of the agreement, it was undertaken by the defendant that he will return the money on or before 10.02.2009. The defendant handed over post dated cheques bearing No. 715731, 715728 and 715728 and a blank signed stamp paper was also given as security by him when he borrowed the amount of Rs.3.00 Lac. As per him, the borrowed amount was returned back with interest by the defendant on

19.02.2009 and agreement dated 06.12.2008 was returned