2025:HHC:26354 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 450 of 2025 Decided on: 05.08.2025 Shri Shyam Singh … Petitioner Versus Shri Asha Ram … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For the respondent : Notice not issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 in case Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 27 of 2020 title Asha Ram & Others versus Shyam Singh, may be quashed and set aside and leave may be granted to produce the above documents to prove the same in evidence, in the interest of justice. Any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner/defendant and against the respondents /plaintiffs.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:26354 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Shimla, dated 02.05.2025, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order VIII, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner, who happens to be the defendant in the civil suit, has been dismissed by the learned Court below. 3. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents herein have filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant vis-à-vis the suit property. This suit was filed in the month of March, 2020. Written statement was filed by the defendant in the month of September, 2020. Counter Claim thereafter was filed by the defendant in the month of February, 2022. In the month of December, 2024, the defendant filed an application under Order VIII, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of the Court to produce certain documents on record. Relevant portion of the application is reproduced as under:- “2. That this case has been listed for defendant witnesses. In this case the applicant/defendant wants to submit and produce certain documents on record. The applicant could not file these documents before framing the issues and as well as at the time of filing of written statement and counter claim due to some unavoidable circumstances. It is pertinent to 3 2025:HHC:26354 mention here that now the applicant/defendant has procured all the documents and wants to produce the same on record and for that the leave is sought from this Hon'ble Court. The applicant intends to produce the following documents in this case: (i) Photocopy of application presented to Pradhan Gram Panchayat Galot Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. dated 16- 03-2020. (ii) Original copy of reply dated 05-07-2020 submitted by Pradhan Dalip Singh and Ward Member Neema Devi. (iii) Photographs of the site containing 7 pages. 3. That the applicant/defendant submit that if the present application is allowed it will not cause prejudice to the non- applicants but will help in the mitigation of multiplicity of litigation and adjudication of the case of merit.” 4. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs inter alia on the ground that the intent of the defendant was to fill up the lacunae in their case and there was no plausible explanation given in the application as to why the documents were withheld, both at the time of filing of the written statement as well as filing of the Counter Claim. It was further mentioned in the reply that lack of explanation in this regard demonstrated that the documents in fact were manipulated by the defendant. 4 2025:HHC:26354 5. This application has been dismissed by learned Court below by assigning the following reasons:- “5. In the entirety facts and circumstances of case, to my mind, the application at hand deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits as not even for namesake a single word is mentioned to explain non-filing of the same at appropriate stage and not even mentioning the same that whose possession or power the said documents were in case the same were not in possession or power of the applicant/defendant as contemplated under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 1-A of Order VIII CPC. In the light of averments of defendant with respect to said documents in the mid of para no.5 of written statement as also in para no.3 of the counter- claim so filed by him the aforesaid non explanation on his part goes to the roots of maintainability of the application at hand. Rather in the given facts, to my mind, the application smacks of want of bonafide. Hence, the application at hand is disposed of being dismissed. After needful it be tagged with main case file. Announced.” 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the impugned order as well as the documents appended with the petition, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is settled law that in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High 5 2025:HHC:26354 Court is not to act as an Appellate Court and the scope of interference is only when there is any perversity in the impugned order. 7. It is also settled law that in the backdrop of material before the learned Trial Court, if the view taken is one of the possible views which can be taken on the basis of the material before it, then if an alternative view is possible, the High Court shall not substitute its view for the view taken by the learned Court below. 8. In this backdrop, while concurring with the reasoning arrived at by the learned Trial Court, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order. Learned Trial Court held that there is not even a single word spelled out in the application as to why the documents were not filed at appropriate stage. Learned Trial Court also observed that it is not mentioned in the application in whose possession or power, the documents were, if the same were not in possession or power of the defendant. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant could not demonstrate that these findings were perverse. In fact, a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, relevant portion whereof has been quoted herein above, demonstrates that nothing is mentioned therein as to why the documents could not be filed earlier that is to say, no reason stands 6 2025:HHC:26354 mentioned therein that what prevented them from filing of said documents at the appropriate stage. Therefore, the findings returned by learned Trial Court being borne out from the record of the case, call for no interference. Therefore, in the backdrop of above discussion, as this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 05, 2025 (narender)