IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.47/2025.

Date of Decision: 03rd December, 2025.

Subhash Chand (Deceased) through LRs and Ors.

.....Petitioners

Versus

Subhash Chand and Another.

…..Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 t

For the Petitioners: Mrr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate.

Bipin Choander Negi, Judge (oral).

PreCsent petition has been preferred against the

impugned order dated 20.01.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, HP,

gwhereby an application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3)

iCPC moved by the present petitioner/plaintiff has been

rejected by the learned trial Court.

2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with

the present petition.

3. In the lis, wherefrom the present proceedings arise, arguments were concluded on 28.10.2024. The matter thereafter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment

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

and the matter was listed for 16.11.2024. It is only on

12.11.2024 that an application had been filed byP the present petitioner/plaintiff for placing on record certain documents, as has been stated supra, the matter had been listed for pronouncement of judgment.

4. Perused the application fileod for placing on record the documents filed by the pre sent petitioners/plaintiffs. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that it has been averred therein that the present respondents/defendants have submittedo revenue record for the year 1986-87 pertainingC to Khasra Nos.1271, 1272 and 1277. In this respect, it has further submitted that the aforesaid khasra numbers are not related to the suit land. After stating the gaforesaid, what is sought to be placed on record is revenue irecord pertaining to Khasra Nos.1271, 1272 and 1277. 5. Once it is the pleaded case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that Khasra Nos.1271, 1272 and 1277 are not related to the suit land, then placing the same on record is of no relevance. Yet another aspect, which needs to be noticed is that insofar as the application is concerned, in the body of the application all that has been stated is qua khasra Nos.1271, 1272 and 1277. However, in the prayer clause surreptitiously what has been included and incorporated is revenue record pertaining to Khasra No.1278. P

6. Appended along with the application is the revenue record pertaining to Khasra No.1278. The copy is dated 27.12.2008. The suit in the case at hand had been filed in the year 2009. As has been stateod supra, the matter was finally heard and judgment was reserved on 28.10.2024. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that the revenue record pertaining to Khasra No.1278 is now osought to be introduced after a span of 15 years. C

7. During the entire trial, the documents which are now sought to be placed on record remained in the gexclusive possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs. For the ireasons known to the petitioners/plaintiffs, the same have not placed on record.

8. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court has correctly rejected the application, as no plausible reason or cause has been shown by the petitioners/plaintiffs, as to why these documents were not placed on record during the entire proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that adequate opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioners/plaintiffs to place on record the documents in the case at hand, more than sufficient opportunities Phave been granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs to prove their case before the learned trial Court.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand moreso when the documents were oavailable throughout the trial with the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that even by exercise of power under Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot be permit