IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.309 of 2024 Decided on: 11.03.2025 Veena Devi ...Petitioner Versus Rattani Devi & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral) Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code’), has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.31/1 of 2014 pending adjudication before learned trial Court. Petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code to place on record certain additional documents on the premise that while cross-examining 2 one of the defendants’ witnesses i.e. DW-4 Shri Mast Ram, objection had been raised by counsel for the plaintiff regarding entitlement of original defendant No.2 Smt. Fullan Devi to purchase land measuring 5 biswas, as she was not an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh. It was also averred in the application that the plaintiff had never raised any objection in that respect in the plaint and since defendant No.2 Smt. Fullan Devi is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh and has inherited agricultural land from her father in District Sirmaur, relevant documents in the shape of jamabandi, certain affidavits and ration cards etc. were required to be placed on record. 4. The plaintiff contested the application and learned trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the same on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by defendant No.1 were already with her and in her knowledge and she could not be allowed to file such documents additionally without showing sufficient cause. It also weighed with the learned trial Court that the suit was instituted in the year 2014. The defendants evidence had commenced w.e.f. 18.12.2018 and for such reason the attempt of defendant No.1 to place on record additional documents was highly belated. 5. The dispute in nutshell inter se the parties is that the plaintiffs have assailed a sale deed executed by their 3 predecessor-in-interest in favour of defendant No.2 Smt. Fullan Devi, who further alienated 2 biswas of land out of said land in favour of father of defendant No.1 In result, challenge has also been laid to the gift executed by defendant No.2 in favour of father of defendant No.1, who subsequently died and as a result thereof his share came to be inherited by defendant No.1. 6. 6. It is categorically averred in para-7 of the plaint that defendant No.2 was not an agriculturist and thus was not competent and entitled to purchase the agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh in view of provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. In written statement to para-7 of the plaint, it has been denied that defendant No.2 was not the agriculturist in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. Thus, the parties were aware about each other’s case from the beginning and one of the contested facts was with respect to the entitlement and competence of defendant No.2 to purchase the land in the State of Himachal Pradesh. That being so, the averment made in the application that plaintiff had not raised any objection regarding non-agriculturist status of defendant No.2 in the plaint is falsified. 8. Once the defendants were fully aware that they had to meet out the objection raised in the plaint, they ought to have placed on record the documents in their possession at the time of 4 filing of written statement or at least within a reasonable time thereafter. It cannot be said that defendants were taken by surprise when DW-4 was allegedly cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendants clearly have been negligent in conducting the case which fact is otherwise evident as the application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code has been filed after about 6 years when the defendants were afforded opportunity to lead evidence for the first time. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.05.2022 in Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022, titled Levaku Pedda Reddamma & others vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & another to assert that learned trial Court should not have dismissed the application of defendant No.1 for placing on record additional documents without considering relevance of such documents. He further submitted that as per aforesaid judgment even if there is some delay in filing the application, the same should not be dismissed and trial Court should impose some costs instead of dismissing the application. 10. I have gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact situation in the case decided vide aforesaid judgment is not available. What can be inferred is that there was some delay on the part of the 5 defendants in filing the application for placing on record the additional documents. However, in the instant case, the delay is huge. The suit was filed in the year 2014. Written statement filed by defendants bears the date 10.07.2014. The defendants evidence began in the year 2018 and the application for placing on record additional documents was filed in the year 2024. Additionally, what can be seen is that defendant No.1 while filing the application had not given out any plausible reason for not filing the application at earlier stage. Whatever reason was given by defendant No.1 in her application has been found to be false. That being so, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied to the fact of the instant case. 11. In my considered view, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the order. Impugned order also cannot be said to be the result of wrong exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Record be returned to learned trial Court immediately. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 11th March, 2025 (vt)