( 2025:HHC:20921 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 550 of 2024. Decided on : 2 nd July, 2025. Rajesh Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus Naresh Bhuarindra ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). The instant petition has been filed for following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 05.07.2024, 06.08.2024 and subsequent proceedings may be quashed and set aside and to issue direction to learned Trial Court to pass judgment and decree in terms of Order 37, Rule 2(3) may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice and fair play. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. The grievance with which the petitioner has approached this Court is that he has filed the suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”), but its proceedings are being delayed unnecessarily. 3. Record reveals that the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on 27.07.2022 for the first time. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of the Code and for completion of pleadings in this application a consideration time was taken. Before this application could be decided, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3 of the Code for judgment in Form No.4-A in Appendix B, this application was filed on 04.07.2023. It appears that no further proceedings have been taken on this application. 4. Record further reveals that on 05.07.2024, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte once again and the matter was adjourned to 06.08.2024. On the adjourned date i.e. on 06.08.2024, the following order was passed by the learned trial Court:- …2…( 2025:HHC:20921 ) “Be put up with application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC on 19.09.2024.” 5. As noticed above, defendant was again proceeded against ex-parte on 5.7.2024. It is not understandable when the defendant had already been proceeded against ex-parte on 27.07.2022, where was the requirement to again proceed him against ex-parte, rather his application under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of the Code should have been decided in his absence. A number of procedural lapses are visible from the record. The suit filed under Order 37 of the Code was filed in the year 2022, is still undecided, whereas it was required to be decided strictly in terms of special procedure prescribed under Order 37 of the Code. 6. Be that as it may, this Court is refraining itself from observing adversely on the mode and manner in which the proceedings of the suit have been dealt, because evidently the plaintiff also cannot escape the blame. It is revealed from the record that the plaintiff has also been accessory to delay the proceedings of the case. …3…( 2025:HHC:20921 ) 7. Thus, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to finally dispose of the matter expeditiously and in any case not later than 30th September, 2025. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 9th July, 2025. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 2nd July, 2025. (jai) …4…( 2025:HHC:20921 )