1 ( 2025:HHC:16472 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.260 of 2025 Date of Decision : 28.05.2025 Netar …… Petitioner Versus Vivek and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.4/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) Heard counsel for the petitioner & respondent/State and perused the pleadings appended along-with the present petition and the impugned order. The impugned order dated 26.03.2025 is an order, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., whereby, an application filed by the present petitioner, plaintiff before the trial Court, stands rejected. 2. The suit in the case at hand was filed in August, 2017. The suit filed by the petitioner was one for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. In the suit, it has been averred that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the predecessors-in-interest of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:16472 ) respondents No.1 to 3, i.e., Shri Amrit Lal along-with other co-sharers. Out of the suit land, Amrit Lal is alleged to have sold his share to the present petitioner. Consideration is stated to have been paid by the petitioner and the petitioner is stated to have been put in possession of the portion of the land sold to the petitioner by the predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 3. 3. After a protracted trial, when the matter was listed for final arguments, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the present petitioner. By way of present application, what was intended to be placed on record was a Spot Tatima regarding existence of the residential house of the petitioner along-with report of the Patwari, Patwar Circle, Nagwain, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, obtained by the petitioner on 25.10.2024. 4. The plaintiff/applicant had already produced the spot report of Kanungo concerned along-with statement of people of vicinity, but no spot Tatima of that particular portion of Khasra No.230 was prepared by the revenue officials at that time. An application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding appointment of any revenue expert or any Advocate as Local Commissioner with a direction to inspect the spot of the said residential house etc. and issuance of Spot Tatima to the applicant with dimensions of said house from all sides along-with spot report, was filed by the plaintiff, but the same was dismissed on 17.10.2024. 5. Order 7 Rule 14 (iii) reads as under: - “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-… … … (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be 3 ( 2025:HHC:16472 ) entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 6. Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly provides that documents intended to be relied upon are to be placed/filed along with the plaint. 7. The same provision allows the parties to produce the documents on record even at the later stage with the permission of the Court provided due diligence is shown by the applicant. 8. The subject matter in the case at hand is an immovable property. Qua identification of the same, at the very outset, i.e., at the time of filing of the suit, identification of a portion of the suit land purchased by the present petitioner should have been done. In the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code for placing on record the Spot Tatima, nothing has been mentioned as to why despite due diligence the said spot map could not have been obtained earlier. Now filing of the application towards the end of the suit when the same was fixed for arguments compels this Court to agree with the findings returned by the Court below that the application has been filed with a view to delay the suit. 9. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting 4 ( 2025:HHC:16472 ) conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 10. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) May 28, 2025 (KS) Judge