IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CMPMO No.176 of 2025

rd

Decided on 03 December 2025

Shri Arvind Kumar and others

…Petitioners

Versus

Shri Rijhu

…Respondent

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate,

for respondents No.1(e) to 1(h).

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed

for the following relief:-

“Quashing and setting aside impugned

order Annexure P-7 with further directions to the Trial Court to call PW-3 Smt. Sureshtha Devi directing her to complete the translation of Urdu Mutation Ex.t PW-3/K and prove the same

in evidence in accordance with law.”

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to place on record the complete translation of document

Ex.PW-3/A, which was in Urdu script alongiwith a request to examine the translator Smt. Sureshtha Devi stands rejec.ted.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in the course of leadinHg evidence, Mutation No.1023 pertaining to the year 1908-1909 was exhibited on the record of the learned Trial Court which is Ext. PW-2/K. Its translation has also been exhibited as Ex. PW3/L. The translator Smt. Sureshtha Devi has been examined as PW-3. Thereafter, an apuplication stood filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedoure Code before the learned Trial Court with the prayerC that the English translation of the document which was submitted was only part translation and, therefore, a prayer was made to place on record full translation and permission was also sought to examine the Urdu translator of the document H Smt. Sureshtha Devi to exhibit the same. This application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court in terms of the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, operative portion whereof reads as under:-

“I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

Through present application, applicant/plaintiff seeks interference of this Court to avail document i.e. translation to be done by one Smt. Surestha, on behalf of applicant/plaintiff. However, the document. in question is a public documePnt and applicant/plaintiff can get the same translated from the concerned person by himself. No reason has been mentionedH in the present application as to why court’s interference is required. Also the court cannot act as an agency for collecting evidence on behalf of parties. Even otherwise also, perusal of case file shows that issues have already been framed in the present suit and that documents if any at this stage can be produced only as per provision under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. In view of specific provision under Order 7 Rule 14 ofu CPC, the present application under Section 151 of CPC is not maintainable and no roelief can be granted which is not permissible under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. Therefore, Cthis court is of the opinion that present application is not maintainable and application accordingly stands disposed of.”

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as the application H which was filed by the petitioners which has been rejected in terms of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5. While passing the impugned order, learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandreshwar Bhuthnath Devasthan Vs. Baboy Matiram Varenkar, (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases

548, in which judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court ha.s been pleased to hold that where a document already stands exhibited and a prayer is to place on recHord a translated copy thereof, there is no requirement even of filing any application to place on record the translated version of the d