IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No.173 of 2015 Date of Decision:- 10.01.2025 Mohan Singh ....Petitioner/Defendant Versus Shanti Devi ....Respondent/plaintiff Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Revision Petition by the defendant is directed against the order dated 07.08.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shimla, H.P., whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC has been allowed on the ground that the dismissal order has been passed on 16.08.2014 and the counsel for the plaintiff had inadvertently noted down the wrong date as 18.08.2014. The application was opposed on the ground that nine opportunities have been taken by the plaintiff for producing evidence but still has not concluded the evidence. Accordingly, the application was allowed on the ground that the case should not be thrown out on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? technical ground and there was a wrong date as such, and there was a mistake on the part of the counsel. Resultantly, it was directed to be registered to its original number and position by the Trial Court. The application was duly supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff and as such subject to settled principles that the rules of procedures are handmaid of justice, the application deserved to be allowed and the same has been allowed, by the Trial Court as the suit was for declaration regarding the validity of a Will. It is to be noticed that the application was filed on 15.09.2015 within limitation and, therefore, also this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court was correct in allowing the same and restoring the suit as valuable civil rights of the plaintiff were involved. The maximum indulgence which could be granted to the present petitioner-defendant, was that the cost was to be imposed upon the plaintiff for prolonging the litigation since the suit had been filed on 16.09.2011 and issues had been framed on 04.04.2013 but evidence was not being led. Resultantly, the present revision petition is partly allowed by directing the plaintiff that she shall pay Rs.10,000/- as cost to the defendant/petitioner. In case the amount is not paid, the trial Court shall take steps to dismiss the suit, in view of the provision of Section 35-B CPC. The original file, which was summoned, be sent back to the learned Trial Court. Parties are directed through their counsel to put in appearance before the learned Trial Court on 03.03.2025. Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 10th January, 2025 (munish thakur)