IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 646 of 2025

Decided on : 02.12.2025

Sh. Sanjeev Sood and another

…Petitioners

Versus

Sh. Faquir Singh and others

…Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel,

Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior

Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta,

Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed

order dated 21.07.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 900587/2014, titled Faquir Chand Vs. Sanjeev Sood & Ors., in terms whereof, the

right of the petitioners to lead evidence was closed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners herein are defendants No.1 and

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

3 before the learned Trial Court. In terms of the record, as after service, they did not appear before the learned Trial Court, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte. It is further evident from the record that during the pendency of the suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed and post submission of report by the learned Local Commissioner, an application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, again fresh notices were issued to the present petitionersu, who responded thereto and filed the written statement too the amended plaint. However, said written statemCent was not confined to the amendments which were allowed by the learned Trial Court but related to the entire Civil Suit. Thereafter, issues were framed on 24.04.2024. The Court stands informed that the witnesses of the plaintiff were allowed to be cross-examined by the present petitioners and it was at the stage of the leading of the evidence of the petitioners that in terms of the impugned order, the right of the petitioners to lead evidence was closed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is per se perverse as the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that when the petitioners were allowed to join the proceedings after amendment in the plaint, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to have denied the right of leading evidence to the petitioners. He further submitted that in fact, as far as the petitioners are concerned, according to them, the purported cause of action pleaded against them by the plaintiff arose only after the amendment was incorporated in the plaint. He submitted that as these extremuely important aspects of the matter were ignored by othe learned Trial Court, therefore, the impugned order bCe set aside and the petitioners be granted opportunity to lead evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is a matter of record that the present petitioners were proceeded against ex parte by the learned Trial Court and till date, in terms of the record, there is no application filed by the petitioners for recall of that order. He further submitted that even if the petitioners were allowed to file a written statement to the amended plaint, this did not alter their status of having been proceeded against ex parte because nothing prevented them from moving an application before the learned Trial Court for recall of the order in terms whereof they were proceeded against ex parte. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no occasion for the petitioners herein to lead any evidence for the reason that as they stand proceeded against ex parte, their right already stands ceased. Accordingly, he suubmitted that the petition being devoid of any merit be dismoissed.

5. CI have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The impugned or