2025:HHC:31853 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 462 of 2023 Decided on: 16.09.2025 Khem Raj and another … Petitioners Versus Mast Ram and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 05.06.2023, in terms whereof, an application filed by the present petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by learned Trial Court in the following terms:- “5. In the present matter, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from obstructing a path. Further, from the perusal of zimni orders, it is observed that both the parties have led their evidence and the matter was listed for arguments and subsequently the present application was filed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31853 6. According to the averments made in the application, it is observed that, the document sought to be produced is a spot map which is averred by the plaintiff that, it should have been annexed to the report of the naib tehsildar Sundernagar ie. EX. DW-2/A and that the defendant's evidence is incomplete. As per Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, allows to produce the documents on record even at a later stage with the permission of the Court which the plaintiff is expected to produce the documents at the time of filing of the plaint. It nowhere states that the plaintiff may fill up the lacuna which the defendant has left while adducing evidence. Moreover, it is observed that the document sought to be produced and proved by the plaintiff had its existence even prior to the filing of the suit, therefore, it is further observed, that the present prayer cannot be allowed, that too at such a belated stage, merely on the ground that the plaintiff is a lay man and is not fully conversant with the judicial procedure. The Hon'ble High Court of H.P in the case titled as Sarvan (since deceased) thr. LR's and ors vs H.P State Electricity Board and ors. Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 97 has stated that, "the parties, in the instant case, have already led their evidence. The allowance of prayer of plaintiffs will necessary mean allowing him to lead additional evidence, which is impermissible in law after omission of 3 2025:HHC:31853 Rule 17-A of Order 18 of CPC, from the statute book through amendment, which came into effect in the year 2002." 7. Accordingly, in view of the above precedent and discussion, the application stands dismissed. The present application stands disposed of which after needful be tagged with the main case file.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is per se bad for the reason that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application has erred in not appreciating that the document exhibited by the defendants was an incomplete document and as the endeavour of the petitioners was only to produce the complete document, no prejudice would have been caused to the other party had the said application been allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no perversity in the impugned order. He submitted that if there is any deficiency in the evidence of the defendants, then the defendants will obviously suffer but the same cannot be made a ground by the petitioners or in other words, the petitioners cannot be allowed to take benefit thereof and fill up the lacunae which exist in their evidence. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that as per the petitioners herein Ext. DW2/A is not a complete document, 4 2025:HHC:31853 consequences thereof, obviously will ensue because during the course of hearing of the case, the petitioners will get an opportunity to demonstrate before the learned Court below that the said document is an incomplete document. Besides, this Court is of the considered view that once this document is already on record, insufficiency thereof shall be considered by the learned Trial Court on the basis of pleadings on record as well as the evidence that has been led on record by the parties, including the cross examination of the witness who has exhibited this document on record. Therefore, in this backdrop, if one peruses the impugned order, it cannot be said that the same is perverse or not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Though, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order but this observation is being made that dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners shall not come in the way of the petitioners in highlighting before the learned Trial Court that Ext. DW2/A is an incomplete document. Parties through Counsel to appear before learned Trial court on 10.10.2025. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 16, 2025 (narender)