1 2025:HHC:22203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.378 of 2025 Date of Decision : 10.07.2025 Bhuvneshwar Singh …… Petitioner Versus Annpurna ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed laying challenge to the impugned order dated 06.05.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., in CMA R No.457 of 2025 tagged with CS R No.5533 of 2013, titled Bhuvneshwar Singh Vs. Annpurna, whereby an application, under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff for permission to place on record documents detailed in the application, has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 3. Suit in the case at hand, wherefrom the present proceedings arise, was filed in the year 2013. The documents sought to be placed on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22203 record pertains to the year i.e. 2011 prior to the filing of the suit. The documents now sought to be produced have nowhere been relied upon in the plaint, nor is the petitioner/plaintiff suing based upon the documents now sought to be produced. 4. Issues were framed in the case at hand on 06.01.2017. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff till 2018. 5. The present application for bringing on record documents has been filed in the year 2025, when the matter was listed for final arguments of the case. No cogent reason has been mentioned in the application for the belated moving of this application, more so, when ample opportunities had been afforded to the petitioner/plaintiff for proving his case. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the application under Order 7 Rule 17 (3) CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for placing on record documents has been correctly dismissed after taking into account requisite necessary parameters. 7. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 reweighing evidence, substituting conclusions, 3 2025:HHC:22203 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. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, I see no infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) July 10th, 2025 (Rupsi) Judge