IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.761 of 2024 Decided on : 26.02.2026 Rajender Pal Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Jaspal Kaur …..Respondent. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The present petition arises out of the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi, H.P., whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for placing on record a copy of the Will and a copy of the Aadhaar Card was rejected. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 9 of 2013 before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi, H.P. A perusal of para 2 of the plaint reads as follows: “2. That previously suit land was owned and possessed by Darsan Singh (Brother of plaintiff), Smt. Mahender Kaur (mother of plaintiff) and by plaintiff herself jointly. Aforesaid Darsan Singh has died and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 he was inherited by defendants No. 5 to 9 and one Sh. Balwinder Singh and said Balwinder Singh has also died who was inherited by defendants No. 1 to 4. Though mutation of inheritance has not yet been attested by defendants. Thereafter Smt. Mahender Kaur has also died on 28.03.2013, who had bequeathed her share in favour of Rajender Pal by way of Will No. 18 dated 08.01.2013, and mutation to this effect has been attested vide mutation No. 2295 dated 27.09.2013.” 3. The averments as made in para No.2 clearly stipulate that Mahender Kaur died on 28.03.2013 and bequeathed her share by way of Will dated 08.01.2013 in favour of Rajender Pal and mutation in this regard was also got attested on 07.09.2013. These averments were not specifically denied by the defendant/applicant. The stand of the applicant/defendant is conspicuously silent in this regard and has not been explained for reasons best known to them. 4. The petitioner filed the present application seeking to lead additional evidence on 30.09.2024, after elapse of more than 11 years during the pendency of the Civil Suit. 5. As per the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the case was fixed for final arguments at the relevant time. The applicant failed to establish that the documents 3 sought to be produced were relevant and necessary for the just adjudication of the case and goes to the root of the case. 6. The conduct of the applicant/petitioner indicates that the application was filed at the stage of final arguments only to delay the proceedings and obstruct the rights of the opposite party. The learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the application was highly belated and filed merely to prolong the litigation. Neither due diligence has been shown in the application nor sufficient reasons have been provided in the supporting averments by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Romesh Verma) Judge February 26, 2026 (Nisha)