IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.715 of 2024 Decided on: 22.04.2026 Thakur Dass(deceased) through LRs & others ….Petitioners Versus Jai Singh & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The present petition arises out of order as pased by learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., dated 13.11.2024, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for producing certified copies of complete case file of Criminal Case No.46/2 of 2026, titled as State of H.P. vs. Thakur Dass dated 04.09.2018 by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmaur has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned trial Court. In the suit, the partition proceedings/instrument of partition framed by the revenue authority i.e. Assistant Collector 1st Grade, 2 Nahan has been challenged to be illegal, wrong and the allotment of share on the basis of instrument of partition has been sought to be declared as illegal and wrong. Further, the mutation on the basis of instrument of partition is also sought to be declared as wrong and illegal. The case file reveals that the suit was filed on 25.03.2015. 3. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement on 30.06.2015, refuting all the allegations as made in the plaint and raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability. It has been averred that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and is estopped by his own act, deed and conduct. It has been averred that defendants No.1 to 3 are owners-in-possession of 11-6 bighas of land, whereas defendant No.4 is owner-in-possession of 11-5 bighas of land. They are actual owners-in-possession of the land as per jambandi for the year 2008-2009 and have full right, title or interest in the same. Therefore, the suit as filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, it has been averred that the partition proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law and that there is no infirmity in the same. Therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.. 3 4. Learned trial Court framed issues on 30.12.2023 and thereafter, amended issues were framed on 13.06.2018. Learned directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contention. 5. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, for the production of certified copies of complete case file of Criminal Case No.46/2 of 2026, titled as State of H.P. vs. Thakur Dass dated 04.09.2018 by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmaur. In the application, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-5, it has been stated that during the pendency of the suit, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Consequently, Shri Anuj Kumar was ordered to be impleaded as defendant No.5 in the proceedings vide order dated 18.07.2017. The said Anuj Kumar had lodged an FIR bearing No. 57/2015 under Sections 447, 434 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the plaintiffs, claiming himself to be the owner-in-possession of the suit land. In the said proceedings, the case was presented before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan. After the conclusion of trial, the plaintiffs were acquitted on 04.09.2018. Further, the said findings have become final, as no appeal has been filed by the State. 4 Therefore, it was prayed that the certified copies of judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.46/2 of 2026, titled as State of H.P. vs. Thakur Dass by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmaur as well as statements of the parties in that said case and photographs be allowed to be taken on record. It is further prayed that the original record be summoned from the Judicial Record Room, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. 6. The said application was duly contested by the present respondent/defendants by raising objections with respect to maintainability. It was averred that the suit has been filed in 2015 and the plaintiffs have failed to file a list of documents or rely upon any documents in respect of their claim. The issues were framed on 13.06.2018. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff on 24.08.2018. Despite passing of six years, the plaintiffs have failed to produce their evidence. It was averred in the reply that the FIR pertains to 2015 and the plaintiffs were acquitted in 2018, therefore, these documents are well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs/applicants. The plaintiffs have deliberately and intentionally failed to produce the documents, and no reason has been assigned for filing the said application belatedly. Further, it has been averred that the said 5 documents have no relevance for the adjudication of the suit in hand. Learned trial Court, vide its order dated 13.11.2024, dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs/petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Precisely, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration challenging the partition proceedings/instrument of partition as carried out by the Assistant Collector dated 10.06.2002. The plaintiffs have further challenged the mutation on the basis of proceedings which have been effected by the revenue authority. The application, whereby the plaintiffs intend to place on record and prove the case file bearing Criminal Case No.46/2 of 2026, titled as State of H.P. vs. Thakur Dass, has no nexus to the suit in hand. Learned trial Court has to adjudicate whether the relief as sought by the plaintiff challenging the partition proceedings is sustainable or not. 9. On the other hand, the case file of criminal case bearing No.46/2 of 2026, is totally separate and independent and it has no bearing on the present suit. There is no mention in the application as to how the said documents are relevant for the adjudication and determination of the suit as filed by the plaintiffs. 6 The case file reveals that the plaintiffs were acquitted in criminal case on 04.09.2018 and admittedly, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 has been filed on 08.11.2024 i.e. after elapse of more than six years. There is no explanation on behalf of the plaintiffs that why it took six years for them to file the said application. Learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the application has been filed by the plaintiffs at the fag end of the trial, despite various opportunities having been granted to lead their evidence. Notwithstanding the passing of more than six years, the plaintiffs have failed to conclude their evidence despite being granted various opportunities. Learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the point in controversy and, after analyzing the material placed on record, has passed the impugned order. 10. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC read as follow: “[14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.—(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. 7 [(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.] (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]” 11. This Court while dealing with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC in CMPMO No.535 of 2024 has held as follows: “11. Before coming to the factual matrix of the case, the legal proposition under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC as laid down vide various decisions as rendered by co-ordinate benches of this Court is as follows: “1. In CMPMO No. 259 of 2017, decided on 09.07.2019, titled Rakesh Kumar Kaundal vs. Smt. Sarswati Devi & others, held as under: “9. It is not in dispute that the application was filed at the stage when the matter was taken up for arguments. It is also not in dispute that earlier on two occasions, the file of the said Criminal case was requisitioned by the learned Trial Court, however, no endeavour was made by the petitioner to place on record the copy of report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, though the said copy was on record of the said file. In these circumstances, in my considered view, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14(3) 8 of the Code because said provision cannot be permitted to be invoked by the petitioner to fill up the lacunae in his case. Though, the statement of Sub Inspector Darshan Singh was recorded in February, 2017, yet it is not only the statement of SI Darshan Singh which the petitioner intends to place on record by way of the application in issue. In the guise of placing on record the statement of SI Darshan Singh, an endeavour is being made to place on record the report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not put forth any cogent explanation as to why report of Finger Print Bureau could not be placed on record earlier despite the fact that record of the case in which report was there stood requisitioned on the request of the petitioner himself before the learned Trial Court on two occasions. In these circumstances, this Court finds no perversity in order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the learned trial Court, because it is evident from the record that due diligence was not exercised by the petitioner in the present case and in the garb of application filed later on, the petitioner could not be permitted to fill up the lacunae left in his case. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No orders as to costs.” 9 2. In CMPMO No.853 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019, Rajesh Kumar and another vs. State Bank of India, it was held as under:- “5. In my considered view, there is no infirmity with the order which has been passed by the learned trial Court. It is not the case of the present petitioners that the documents which were intended to be placed on record vide application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure came into existence only after the judgment was reserved in the civil suit. This demonstrates that the petitioners did not act diligently before the learned trial Court and in fact were trying to fill up the lacunae. 6. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted to be abused by a litigant to be fill up lacunae as that is not intent of the said statutory provision. 7. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned trial Court that though procedural law is the hand maiden of justice, however, the procedure cannot be permitted to be manipulated by a party to the prejudice of other.” 3. In CMPMO No. 568 of 2023 dated 17.10.2023, titled as Madan Lal vs. Nanak Chand & others, it was held as under:- 10 “7. The provision of under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the lacunae. Besides this in the course of exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to sit over as an Appellate Court upon the findings returned by the learned Court below, whose order is under challenge and if the view taken by the said Court is plausible on the basis of the facts before it, then this Court need not interfere.” 4. In CM(M) No.231/2009 in CM No. 3959/09 dated 08.04.2009, titled Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others vs. M/s Haldiram Bhujiawala & another, it was held as under:- “21. In any event, both under the old Order 7 Rule 18 sub-rule (1) and new Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule (3) CPC a new document can certainly be produced on behalf of plaintiff at the final hearing of suit, but the same has to be done with leave of the Court. It is not that the plaintiff has a legal vested right to file a document at a belated stage i.e. at the final hearing of the suit. The said provision gives a discretionary power to the Court, which needless to say has to be exercised in a reasonable and legal manner. In fact, this power has to be exercised sparingly and for some overpowering reason and not as a matter of routine. If petitioners interpretation ‟ of Sub Rule 3 is accepted, it would make it impossible for the trial court to conclude the hearing of any suit. 11 22. Moreover, in the present case on perusal of applications filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, I am of the view that discretionary power with the trial Court to file additional documentary evidence has been rightly refused. I may mention that in the said applications filed by petitioners- plaintiffs, the only reason given for filing of these documents at a belated stage was, "on account of human error and inadvertence and oversight that the said documents escaped the notice of the Advocate." Consequently, it is not open to the petitioners-plaintiffs to now contend in the present proceedings that the documents could not be filed initially as they were not in their power and possession. In fact, from perusal of documents sought to be filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, it is apparent that majority of these documents were all throughout in power and possession of petitioners-plaintiffs. 24. Further, in my view, the impugned order neither suffers from any material irregularity nor the same is in excess of jurisdiction and, consequently, it calls for no interference in Article 227 jurisdiction.” 12. The legal principles as laid down by this Court clearly stipulate that the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC cannot be permitted to be invoked by a litigant or an accused to fill up the lacunae in the case as that is not intent of the said provisions. The provisions of Order 7 12 Rule 14 of CPC cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the lacuna.” 12. The plaintiffs have failed to make out a case of grant of relief by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC keeping in view the fact that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate from the record that how the said documents are relevant for the adjudication of the suit as filed by them. Therefore, there is no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 13. Consequently, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 14. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here- in- above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge April 22, 2026 (vt)