IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 27 of 2026 Decided on : 09.01.2026

Mohan Lal

…Petitioner

Versus

Kishan Chand

…Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Jeet Ram Poswal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Notice not issued.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed

order dated 07.10.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, in CMA No. 3328/2024 in Civil Suit No. 57/16, in terms whereof, application filed by the petitioner/defendant, under Order VIII, Rule 1-A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC), to produce

and prove on record certain documents, stands dismissed.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order as well as other documents

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

appended therewith, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

3. The Civil Suit in issue was filed in the year 2016 and since then the suit is pending adjudication. The application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the CPC, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3, was filed in the year 2024.

4. On query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he infourms the Court that the application was filed after the eviodence of the parties was over and the case was listed fCor final hearing.

5. The contents of the application were to the effect that the applicant/defendant, at the time of the filing of the written statement could not produce certain original documents due to the reason that these documents were not in his possession and were on record of case titled Mohan Lal Vs. Kishan Chand, which was pending before S.O. Dharamshala and the report of Kanoongo Bandobast along-with other documents were also not in the possession of the defendant. It was further averred in the application that at the time the defendant led the evidence, he could not produce said documents and therefore, he could not also examine the witnesses. Subsequently, the applicant recovered the original documents from the office of SNT, Una and from the record room at Una, hence, the application was filed.

6. The application stands rejected by the learned Trial Court by holding that the suit stood filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of possession and the defendant was seeking permission to placue on record certain documents from the office of SNT, Unao dated 04.05.2024, certified copy of Field Book IstemaCl 1966-67, Aks Musavi for the year 1966-67, Field Book and Aks Musavi bandobast for the year 1999-2000. Learned Court held that the perusal of record revealed that the documents were relatable to a case i.e. Case No. 146/2012 decided on 17.05.2012 by Additional Commissioner, Kangra. Learned Court further held that the stage at which the application was filed at the stage of arguments and the application was thus filed belatedly. Learned Trial Court also held that the applicant had knowledge regarding the proceedings going on before the Revenue Court and the documents could have been placed on record way before the closure of the evidence of the case.

7. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. It is not as if the documents which the petitioner/defendant intended to place on record came into existence only at the time of filing of the application. The suit relates to the year 2016. The documents relate to proceedings which culminated as far back as in year 2012. This means that the documents alrueady existed even at the time when the Civil Suit was fileod and for the acts of omission of the present petitionCer, obviously, the proceedings in the Civil Suit could not have been further delayed. Otherwise also, it is obvious that the intent of filing the application at the belated stage, was just an endeavour to prolong the case.

8. Therefore, as this Court finds no merit in the pet