2025:HHC:27011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.440 of 2024 Decided on: 11.08.2025 Kuldeep Singh & another … Petitioners Versus Shri Chando Ram (since deceased) through LRs. Shri Kulwant Singh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 (a), 1 (c) and 1 (d). Respondents No. 1(b) (i) to 1 (b) (iii) ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated 19.09.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, in terms whereof, two applications filed by the petitioners, one under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and the other under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code stand dismissed. 2. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 3. The applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by the learned Trial Court by assigning the following reasons:- “In the present case by way of present application 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27011 applicants intend to prove that the land allotted to them in partition was not fair and therefore, they intend to prove this fact by leading evidence, which will amount to questioning the order of partition, which is not permissible under law. Moreover, perusal of zimni orders show that the case has been fixed for arguments since 13.03.2018 and every time, Ld counsel for plaintiffs/applicants has sought adjournment for arguments. After seeking ample opportunities for addressing arguments, on 18.03 2019, application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was filed by the applicants and thereafter, application under Order 7 Rule 14 (2) read with Section 151 CPC was filed on 22.06 2022. I fail to understand that if applicants intended to bring the aforesaid document on record or intended to lead evidence with respect to these facts whether or not it be material to prove their cause of action in the present case, they should have been vigilant and should have taken the steps within time. Order sheets are clearly reflective of the fact that unnecessarily adjournments were taken for arguments for almost four years and now applicants under the garb of present applications are trying to bring the evidence, which is not even material to their cause of action, which they have alleged in the present case. Needless to say that the case has been pending for more than a decade and moving of these kind of frivolous applications is deprecatory. Accordingly, both applications are dismissed subject to cost of Rs.500/-Both the applications be entered if not already entered. Both the applications stands disposed-of Be tagged with the main case file for record.” 4. A perusal of this Para demonstrates that what weighed 3 2025:HHC:27011 with the learned Court while rejecting the applications was the fact that the applications were filed at a belated stage when the matter was being listed for hearing and as per the learned Court below, the filing of the applications was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the endeavour was to delay the case. Learned Court below observed that if the petitioners intended to bring the material on record as was being intended under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, then nothing prevented them from doing the needful at the stage of leading the evidence and now when the matter was being fixed for hearing and that too, after almost four years since the case was being listed for arguments, the applications could not be allowed and the petitioners could not be permitted to try and bring additional evidence on record. 5. This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the applications call for no interference. It could not be demonstrated by learned Senior Counsel that the findings returned in Para-8 of order dated 19.09.2022 were either perverse or not borne out from the record. As it is evident that the applications were filed by the petitioners at a belated stage when the case was being listed for arguments without any valid justification as to why these applications were not filed earlier, same clearly demonstrates that there was no due-diligence exercised by the petitioners in the filing of the applications and the endeavour indeed was to keep the matters pending by filing frivolous 4 2025:HHC:27011 applications. 6. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 11, 2025 (Rishi)