( 2025:HHC:15004 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 240 of 2025. Decided on : 21 st May, 2025. Jai Sani ...Petitioner. Versus Ghambharu ....Respondent. Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 72 of 2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff. By way of application under Order 18, Rule 17 of the CPC, it was averred that one of his witness i.e. Shri Gopal Singh Chauhan, Notary Public (PW-3) had been examined but in his statement there was some discrepancy as to the year of the execution of the agreement inter se the parties. The plaintiff, thus, sought clarification by recalling the witness. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:15004 ) 4. It is revealed from the record that the application under Order 18, Rule 17 of the CPC was moved by the plaintiff at a stage when both the parties had already addressed their respective arguments and the case was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. 5. It is more than settled that no application can be maintained at the stage when arguments had been already heard. Even otherwise, the application has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that it did not find any necessity to seek clarification at belated stage of the proceedings and also that if the prayer was allowed, it would amount to allowing the plaintiff to fill up the lacunae. The opinion formed by the learned trial Court needs no substitution as the view so taken is reasonable and justified. 6. In the given facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 21st May, 2025. (jai)