2025:HHC:21863 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 10902 of 2025 Decided on : 08.07.2025 Kunal Thakur. …Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 6 & 8 to 11. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Caveat Petition No. 374 of 2025 Discharged and disposed of. CWP No. 10902 of 2025 2. The petitioner has challenged order dated 26.05.2025, passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), passed in Revision Petition No. 11 of 2024, titled Sh. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:21863 Kunal Thakur Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi (deceased) through legal heirs & Ors., in terms whereof learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order passed by learned Collector, Sub-Division Manali, District Kullu, H.P, in a miscellaneous application filed in case No. 24/2023, titled Sh. Kunal Thakur Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi (deceased) through legal heirs & Ors., in terms whereof learned Collector dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to produce and place on record copy of a Jamabandi and copy of settlement deed, in terms whereof purportedly Smt. Parvait Devi had transferred her land by way of sale deed in favour of her son. 3. In terms of the record, the petitioner has preferred a Revenue Appeal against order dated 04.10.2022, passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, in case No. 19 NT/(P)2017, vide which mode of partition was accepted by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade. This Appeal is pending before the learned Collector. It is during the pendency of this Appeal that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 3 2025:HHC:21863 seeking leave to produce documents already referred to hereinabove. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the appeal was filed by the petitioner in the year 2022, whereas, the application was filed on 06.10.2023. 5. A copy of the application is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. In terms thereof, it is mentioned that since the land in dispute was subjudice in a matter before the learned Civil Judge, Manali and as the petitioner has challenged the title and as in the Appeal, the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the private respondent No. 1 namely, Smt. Parvati had transferred part of the suit land in favour of her son vide settlement deed dated 01.04.2017 and thereafter, her son Karma Konchok had further transferred the part of suit land by way of sale deed in favour of Tangjut Gompa Buddhist Society, Kaza, L&S, Assistant Collector 1st Grade made grave error while passing the order of partition without impleading necessary parties. 6. On these grounds, the documents are being intended to be placed on record. 4 2025:HHC:21863 7. A perusal of the application demonstrates that it is not supported by any affidavit of the applicant. 8. Be that as it may, in the entire application there is not even a whisper as to why the documents which the petitioner intended to place on record, were not placed on record either before the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade or at the time of the filing of the Appeal because it is no one's case that these documents were not available with the petitioner during the pendency of the matter before the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade. This Court is making said observation for the reason that the order was passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Manali on 04.10.2022, whereas as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court that besides other documents even the sale deed stood executed in the year 2020. 9. In terms of order dated 20.12.2023, the application was dismissed by the learned Collector Sub-Division, Manali, by assigning the following reasons:- “From the perusal of the record and the arguments forwarded by both the parties it is clear that the grounds 5 2025:HHC:21863 taken in para no 4.of the application u/s 151 are same as taken in the original appeal in para no4. Whereas the contents of para no.3 of application is merely the reproduction of para no.3 and 5 of the main appeal no. 24/2023 pending before this court. Furthermore, it is a well settled law that the inherent power of under section 151 of the code of civil procedure can be invoked only in circumstances where alternative remedies do not exist. Further, "Such inherent power cannot override statutory provision or create remedies which are not contemplated under the code. Section 151 can not be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions or reviews. The applicant has already filed an appeal citing same grounds U/s 14 of H.P. Land revenue Act before this court which is on argument stage. I do not find any merit in the present application in view of the above discussion hence the same is dismissed being devoid merit.” 10. In Revision, the findings returned by the learned Collector have been upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), by returning the following findings:- “6 Further, from perusal of the record placed before me, it is clear that the deceased respondent No.1, 6 2025:HHC:21863 had filed an application dated 31.10.2013. under Section 123 of the Act, before the Assistant Collector 1" Grade, Manali (hereinafter referred to as 'the AC 1º Grade), for partition of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.126/175. Kitta 47, atea measuring 4-07-79 hectares, situated in Up-Muhal Simsa, Phati Nasogi. Tehsil Manali District Kullu. The AC 1 Grade, transferred the matter to AC 2 Grade. Manali on 6.9.2017, who after processing the application, devised the mode of partition vide order dated 15.02.2018 The present respondent challenged that order of mode of partition upto the level of this Court and the same was upheld by all the Courts and finally this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2021, passed in Revision Petition No.205/2019, had directed Dagica Grade, Manali to complete the partition proceedings within three months from the date of appearance of parties before him. The present petitioner had also filed a review petition No.1/2022 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 1.06.2022. Thereafter, the AC 19 Grade, proceeded further in the matter and the present petitioner challenged the order dated 04.10.2022, passed by the AC 1% Grade in Case No.19.NT/(P)2017 before the Ld. Collector, which is pending adjudication. From the 7 2025:HHC:21863 record submitted by the contesting respondents, during the course of arguments, it is also clear that the present petitioner had also moved to the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and had filed a CWP No.5580 of 2022 against the partition proceedings, and the Hon'ble High Court, vide judgement dated 23 August, 2022, has dismissed the same. In concluding para of the said judgement the Hon'ble High Court has observed that "The partition proceedings are pending since 2013. These proceedings cannot be allowed to be unnecessarily dragged by the petitioner." From perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. Collector and the contents of the present revision petition, it appears that the petitioner is trying to drag the partition proceedings un-necessarily by moving miscellaneous applications on the one pretext or the other and this act of the petitioner is against the spirit of the aforesaid judgement dated 23rd August, 2022 of the Hon'ble High Court and is also abuse of process of law.” 11. From the chronology of the litigation, as is mentioned in the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), this Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) that the intent of the petitioner indeed is to linger on the matter. This 8 2025:HHC:21863 is more so evident from the fact that even this Court in CWP No. 5580 of 2022, observed that since the partition proceedings were pending since 2013, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be unnecessarily dragged by the petitioner. Incidentally, it was the present petitioner who was the petitioner in CWP No. 5580 of 2022 also. 12. This Court would like to observe that, it is settled law that a party cannot be allowed to improve its case to the prejudice of the other party. Though the procedure is the handmaiden of justice, but then the procedure cannot be allowed to be abused and misused by one party. Circumstances in which a party can be shown the indulgence of being allowed to place on record documents, is where a party can satisfy the Court that either the documents which it intends to place on record, were not in its possession or where the party can satisfy the Court that despite due diligence, it could not earlier place the documents on record. 13. In the present case, the application filed to place on record the documents is conspicuously silent as to why the documents could not be placed on record either before the 9 2025:HHC:21863 learned Assistant Collector or along-with the grounds of Appeal. At the cost of repetition, this Court observes that it is not the case of the petitioner that he became aware of these documents only during the pendency of this Appeal. Therefore, it is evident and apparent that the endeavour of the petitioner was not only to delay the proceedings, but also to improve his case, to the prejudice of the respondents, which cannot be allowed. 14. This Court is of the considered view that a party cannot be allowed to challenge an order passed by a Court of law or a quasi-judicial Authority on the basis of documents, which were not placed before that particular Authority or Court of law by the parties. 15. Herein, the intent of the petitioner is to assail the validity of the order of the Assistant Collector on the basis of the documents, which were in the pocket of the petitioner and not placed before the Assistant Collector. This cannot be allowed to be done because if this is done, then it would amount to giving premium to someone who intends to abuse the process of law. 16. In this backdrop, when one peruses the order 10 2025:HHC:21863 passed by the Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner, one finds that the reasons which have been mentioned therein while dismissing the application as well as Revision, are cogent and prudent reasons and do not call for any interference. The findings returned by the learned Authorities that the petitioner on one pretext or the other, is trying to delay the adjudication, by either filing Review Petitions or filing miscellaneous applications, are correct findings, which are borne out from the record. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Authorities that the petitioner is trying to drag the partition proceedings unnecessarily by, moving miscellaneous applications on one pretext or the other, which is against the spirit of the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 5580 of 2022, dated 23.08.2022, where the writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:- “The partition proceedings are pending since 2013. These proceedings cannot be allowed to be unnecessarily dragged by the petitioners. In view of above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by three revenue 11 2025:HHC:21863 Courts. Hence, the writ petition fails. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 17. Accordingly, in the light of above findings as this Court finds no merit in the petition, same is dismissed in limine. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 08, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)