IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.314 of 2025 Reserved on:-17.07.2025 Decided on 31st July, 2025 Sh. Surender Kumar …Petitioner Versus Sh. Pankaj Bansal and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 24.04.2025, passed by learned Rent Controller-II Solan, District Solan, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence to prove the certified copy of statement of one Gurmail Singh has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order, in terms whereof, said application has been dismissed, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that the respondent has filed a petition against the present 2 petitioner under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. He stated that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to place and prove on record the certified copy of the statement of Gurmail Singh and the certified copy of building plan of the disputed premises of the rent petitioner proved by them through Gurmail Singh in Civil Suit No.13-1/2014. He submitted that the refusal of the Court in allowing this application is per se bad and the reasoning given in the impugned order is perverse and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/rent petitioner submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and in fact the application was filed after availing more than 18 opportunities for examination of RWs, which led to the closure of the evidence of the petitioner herein and though indulgence was thereafter shown by this Court in a CMPMO filed by the petitioner, reference whereof is also in the 3 order passed by the learned Rent Controller, but this Court was pleased to observe that learned Rent Controller was not to grant unnecessary adjournments in the matter. Accordingly, he submitted that as the intent of the petitioner herein was just to delay the matter and there was no merit in the application, dismissal thereof by the learned Rent Controller was justified in law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as the impugned order. 5. The backdrop, in which, the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been referred by me hereinabove. 6. The application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller by assigning the following reasons:- “In the present case, the applicant has certainly not been able to shoe that despite due diligence he could not produce the said evidence at the first. The application to say the least is not bona fide. It is to be noted that the evidence of PWs concluded on 02.09.2019 and the case was fixed for examination of RWs. Since then, more than 18 opportunities have been availed by the applicant for examination of RWs but in vain and therefore, his evidence was closed by the order of the Court. In fact, in the case in hand, vide order dated 4 03.05.2023, the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. have in CMPMO No.178 of 2023, have also directed this Court not to grant unnecessary adjournments to the applicant. Record reveals that the applicant is merely attempting to cause delay in the matter by filing unnecessary applications. In such a case, if the application is allowed, the cause of justice would be sacrificed. Therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to exercise its inherent powers under Order 151 CPC in allowing the applicant to lead additional evidence to prove the aforementioned documents on record. Hence, the application is dismissed. The same stands disposed of accordingly. It after needful be tagged with the main case file for record. Case be listed for arguments on 20.05.2025.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny that after the evidence of PWs was concluded on 02.09.2019, more than 18 opportunities were indeed availed by the petitioner herein to examine RWs and thereafter, his evidence was closed by the Court. The petitioner thereafter, approached this Court by way of a CMPMO, wherein, indulgence was shown by the Court. However, the same is not material for the adjudication of this case. 8. By way of the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the prayer was to allow the petitioner to place and prove on record the certified copy of the statement of Gurmail Singh and certified copy of the building plan 5 of the disputed premises of the rent petitioner proved by rent petitioner through him in Civil Suit No.13-1/2014, titled Pankaj Bansal and another versus Surinder Kumar. 9. Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceedings, the truth of facts stated therein. This provision reads as under:- “Thus a perusal of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act demonstrates that evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, o in a later stage of the same proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable.” 10. Now, there was nothing mentioned in the application to demonstrate that the situation as is envisaged in Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act existed so as to warrant that the prayer made in the application should have been favourably considered by the learned Rent Controller. It was not the case of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller that the reason as to why the application was being filed, was that the witness was 6 either dead or he could not be found, or that he was incapable of giving evidence, or was being kept out of the way by the adverse party etc. etc. 11. Therefore, due to lack of these material particulars in the application and in the light of the statutory provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, the application of the petitioner could not otherwise have been allowed by the learned Rent Controller. In these circumstances, coupled with the fact that the intent of the petitioner obviously was to delay the proceedings, as nothing prevented him from summoning Gurmail Singh as his own witness, the filing of the application under Section 151 CPC was nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and dismissal thereof by the learned Rent Controller cannot be faulted with. 12. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 31, 2025 (Vinod)