2026:HHC:2724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 605 of 2025 Decided on: 08.01.2026

Sh. Vijender Singh … Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Rajinder Pal o … Respondents

Coram

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

___________________________________________________________________

For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondoent : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

follow ing reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition

may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders passed by Ld.

i Civil Judge Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.; passed in Civil

Misc. Application No. 646-6 of 2021 in a Civil suit titled as Vijender Singh versus Rajinder Pal" and the same confirmed by the Ld. Additional District Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 45 of 2022 titled as "Vijender Singh versus Rajinder Pal" i.e. Annexures-P1 and P7 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice after calling for the records of the case from the ld. Courts below in

the interest of justice.”

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

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the present petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent herein alongwith an applicatfion under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for interim therein. Learned Trial Court dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner prreferred an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Arguments in the appeal were heard on 09.07.2025.

3. CAfter the arguments were heard, the present petitioner filed an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record certain documents on 09.07.2025 gitself. In terms of the impugned order dated 02.08.2025, the appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Order 43, Rule 1(r) CPC was dismissed.

4. The grievance of the petitioner inter alia is that the appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court without considering the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Today, learned Counsel for the parties made available the order passed on the said application by the learned Appellate Court for the perusal of the Court. This Order is dated

02.08.2025 and the same reads as under:-

“Since, the present application was filed after hearing the arguments and the main appeal has been dismissed, hence, no further order is required to be passed. The same is disposed of accordinglyo. The file, after due completion be tagged with main case file.”

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as there was an application uon record filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was filed before the pronouncement of the judgment, may be after the arguments were heard in the appeal, learned Appellate Court was bound to have decided the same on merit and it could not have been disposed of in the manner as has been done in the present case.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Hhas submitted that as the application was filed after the arguments were heard in the appeal, as is also evident from the averments made in the application, the same was rightly dismissed in terms of the order passed thereupon on 02.08.2025.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the orders passed by the learned Appellate Court including the order passed by learned Appellate Court on application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. In terms of the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be taken for cofnsideration by the learned Appellate Court at the stage of the final hearing of the appeal when the matter is being decided finally o