( 2025:HHC:43902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CMPMO No. 377 of 20.19

Decided on: 16P.12.2025

____________________________________________________ Nasib Kumar ……….. petitioner

Versus

Dev Dutt Sharma

……….respondents

____________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? ¹

For the petitioner : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr.

Advocate, with Mr. Anirudh

Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr.

Advocate with Mr. Sana Rana and

Ms. Tamana Sharma, Advocate.

____________________________________________________

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

The present petition has been filed against the

impugned order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P., whereby a

composite application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order

XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.

2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned

order and the documents appended with the present petition.

3. In the application preferred which has been allowed

by the impugned order, the following relief has been sought:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that application may kindly be allowed and the leave may kindly be granted for tendering into evidence (i) certified copy of judgment and decree

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

dated 31-5-2016 (ii) certified copy of judgement and decree dated 24-11-2017 (iii) authenticated copy of the statement of accounts pertaining to the loss/damage of goods along with the certificate under section 65 B (4) of the Indian evidence act by summing the witness Yashpaul Chaudhary in the interest of justice”.

4. Insofar as placing on record the certified copies of the judgments in the case at hand are concerned, the same being per-se admissible, no fault can be found with that part of the impugned order permitting the same to be taken on record. The dispute before this Court primarily pertains to Relief No.3, as has been claimed and detailed (supra).

5. From a perusal of the application, it is evident that one Yaspal Chaudhary was examined by the present respondent as PW-4. The said witness it is alleged in the application was examined qua preparation of loss of goods computer statement. The said statement qua loss of goods is a computer print out &

hence a statement under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is required to be appended thereto. In his deposition, he got exhibited a document bearing Exhibit PW-4/A. The same is an index with respect to bills Exhibits PW-1 to P-75. In the application, it is averred that bills mentioned at Sr. No. 30 & 34 of Exhibit PW-4/A could not be got exhibited. It is for the aforesaid reason that Yashpal Chaudhary is sought to be re-examined & statement with respect to loss of goods along with the certificate under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act is sought to be tendered.

6. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that power to recall a witness for the purpose of reexamination is to be exercised sparingly. The same cannot be merely exercised on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the other party. Other than the aforesaid, the same cannot be invoked to fill lacuna in the evidence. The purpose of re-examination is to clarify doubts or explain ambiguities which may have oc curred on account of an answer given in the cross examination which it is submitted is not the case at hand. Besides the aforesaid, it is submitted that tendering of documents which were in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff at a belated stage is not bona fide. No valid and sufficient reasons are forthcoming as to why the said documents could not be placed on record earlier. It is contended that the entire endeavour is to protract the trial. Other than the aforesaid, it is submitted that Yaspal Chaudhary was examined as PW-4. During his examination, he stated that Exhibit PW-4/A