IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 246 of 2025 Decided on: 23.05.2025 Babu Ram .…Petitioner. Versus Bansi Lal and Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 25.04.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 17 of 2024, whereby the defence of the petitioner herein has been closed by order of the Court. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15620 ) 3. Petitioner is the defendant against whom the suit has been filed by respondent No. 1, Bansi Lal, in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla, H.P. 4. Petitioner had put in appearance before learned Trial Court for the first time on 04.11.2023. 5. As per provisions of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner was obligated to file written statement within thirty days of his service. He could have sought extension of time upto ninety days. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner had not filed the written statement even within the period of ninety days not only from the date of his service, from the date of first appearance also. 6. On 25.04.2024, when the matter was listed before learned Trial Court, neither any oral prayer for extension of time was made nor any application for such purpose was moved. In such circumstances, learned Trial Court had no option 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15620 ) but to pass the order as now impugned in these proceedings. 7. The instant petition has been filed on 19.05.2025 i.e. more than after one year of the date of passing of order. In the petition, it has been submitted that petitioner was not aware about the passing of order till 22.08.2024. This shows the casual approach with which the petitioner has been contesting the suit. Even after 22.08.2024, petitioner had not taken pains to assail the order. 8. The impugned order cannot be interfered with for the reason that no illegality or perversity has been pointed out. 9. In result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 23rd May, 2025 Judge (sushma)