IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.556 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Date of decision: 30.03.2026 Keshari Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Kishori Lal ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Barsar, Hamirpur, dated 06.11.2024, whereby the applications filed by the defendant under the provisions of Order 8 Rule IA(3) of CPC, have been ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2009, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant, her agent, servants and family members from raising any sort of construction in any manner or changing the nature of land over the and comprised in Khata No. 8 Min, Khatauni No. 16 Min, Khasra Nos. 387, 389, 395, kita-3 land measuring 0-02-62 Hectares, situated in Tika Morsu Daryalan, Mauza 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Pahalu, Tehsil Barsar, Distt, Hamirpur (HP.) as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-04. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land. The defendant, who is a stranger, with utter disregard has got no legal right over the suit land. Instead, the defendant is bent upon to occupy the suit land by raising illegal construction thereon. Although, the plaintiff requested the defendant to carry out demarcation of her own land, the defendant refused to do so and openly threatened the plaintiff that she would occupy the suit land forcibly. Therefore, a decree for permanent prohibitory in junction restraining the defendant, her agents, servants and family members from raising any sort of construction over the suit land was prayed. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for possession in the event the defendant successfully raised any structure on the suit land during the pendency of suit. Lastly, decree for demarcation was also prayed in the plaint. 3. The present petitioner/defendant, Keshari Devi, contested the suit by filing written statement on 10.04.2009, raising various preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability etc. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff is not in possession of Khasra No.387 and that the defendant has been in exclusive possession of the suit land. The defendant has constructed a latrine and a bathroom over Khasra No.387 since March 1990, and the defendant is enjoying the same peacefully without interruption and objection and has -3- become owner by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that the possession of the defendant is open, continuous, hostile, uninterrupted and without objection since March 1990. 4. Initially, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed on 26.10.2016. The defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (Circuit Court at Barsar) bearing Civil Appeal No.13 of 2016. The learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 16.12.2017, set aside the judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court on 26.10.2016 and framed an additional issue i.e. issue No.7A, which reads as under:- “Whether the defendant has become owner of Khasra No.387 by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD” 5. Furthermore, it was held that both the parties shall be entitled to lead evidence on the aforesaid additional framed issue, with a further direction to appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land and ascertain the nature and extent of the encroachment. The judgment as passed by the learned first appellate Court remanding the matter to learned trial Court was assailed before this Court by filing FAO No.498 of 2018. The same was decided by this Court on 19.04.2024,whereby the order as passed by learned first appellate Court was upheld and the appeal as preferred against the said remand order was dismissed. -4- 6. After the dismissal of FAO, which was preferred against the remand order, the present defendant/petitioner preferred applications under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC for producing on record the certified copy of jamabandi of Khata and Khatauni Nos.3 and 4 of Tikka Morshi Datyalan, Tappa Pahlu, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur for the year 1955-56 and order sheet dated 30.07.2024 in Revision bearing Case No.38/2010, titled as Keshari Devi vs. Kishori Lal & others pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, Similarly, another application under the same provisions of law was filed, praying that the original file of application for correction of area of Khara No.391/221, 387/221, Kita2, land measuring 0K-19 Marlas, situated in Tikka Morshu Datyalan, Tappa Pahlu, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1955-56 titled as Duni Chadn vs. Kishori Lal & others along with order sheet dated 19.01.2009 be taken on record and to allow the defendant to prove the same in accordance with law. 7. Separate replies to the said applications were filed by the plaintiff. It was averred that the applications are not maintainable and the same have been filed just to prolong the case in hand. All the averments as made in the applications were refuted and it was prayed that the applications be dismissed. -5- 8. Learned Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Barsar, vide its order dated 06.11.2024, dismissed both the applications by a common order. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant is before this Court by way of present petition. 10. It is contended by Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Rule of Law is meant to advance justice and in this context, applications were filed to place certain documents on record, which are essential to prove the case of the defendant. He further submits that since additional issue regarding adverse possession was framed by learned first appellate Court on 16.12.2017, these documents are highly relevant to corroborate the plea of adverse possession and adjudicate the controversy at hand. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has supported the impugned order, whereby both the applications were ordered to be dismissed by the learned trial Court. He submits that the endeavour of the defendant/petitioner is to prolong the case in hand indefinitely. He further submits that repeated applications are being filed by the defendant just to stall the suit, which have been filed by the plaintiff in the year 2009. He further submits that despite passing of more than 17 years, the suit has not come to its logical conclusion. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. -6- 13. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff/respondent filed the present suit on 03.03.2009. The defendant/petitioner, Keshari Devi, filed a written statement in response to the same on 10.04.2009. The issues were framed on 28.01.2010 and the evidence of the parties was closed on 12.10.2011. Though, the suit was initially decreed by learned trial Court, but, the said judgment and decree was reversed by learned first appellate Court by framing additional issue with respect to adverse possession and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court with a direction to appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land and ascertain the nature and extent of the encroachment. The said remand order was assailed by filing FAO No.498 of 2018, but the same was dismissed on 19.04.2024. 14. In the present case, the applications under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) were filed by the defendant/petitioner on 23.10.2024. The suit has been hanging fire for the last 17 years and now, after a lapse of considerable period, present applications have been filed. It has not been mentioned in the applications that how the documents as intended to be placed on record are relevant for the determination and adjudication of the present controversy. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since an additional issue was framed by the appellate Court, therefore, in order to substantiate its plea of adverse possession, these documents are very relevant to decide the controversy. In this regard, it is pertinent to -7- mention that an additional issue was framed by the learned first appellate Court on 16.12.2017 and the applications were filed after a lapse of more than 7 years. A perusal of the applications nowhere demonstrates that the documents intended to be placed on record are beneficial for deciding the case at hand. The pleadings in the applications fail to explain that why the said applications were not filed earlier and how the said documents are relevant to adjudicate the case. It appears that, in order to prolong the matter, the present applications were filed that too after a lapse of long period. 16. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 A(3) read as under: “1A Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 17. The defendant has failed to make out the case in consonance with the said provisions. 18. The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that in previous round of litigation (FAO No.498 of 2018), this Court directed learned trial Court to decide the case within three months from 19.04.2024. Since, there is a mandate by this Court in FAO No.498 of 2018, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that neither do the applications have any substance, nor do they go to the root of the case. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to prove due diligence as -8- to why the documents, which are intended to be filed, were not filed earlier, and what relevance the said documents have got to the present case. 19. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the factual matrix of the case and has correctly dismissed the applications as filed by the defendant/petitioner. The petitioner/defendant has failed to make out a case for permission to place the documents on record that too after a lapse of considerable period as the suit is pending 2009. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, has laid the parameters and the scope of interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in paras 15 and 16. “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based.Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is -9- no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:- "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." -10- 21. In view of above, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Learned trial Court to comply with the mandate as passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.498 of 2018 to expedite the case 22. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 30th March, 2026. (vt)