2025:HHC:20580 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(OS) No. 08 of 2025 Decided on: 26th June, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Shyam Lal Appellant/Defendant... Versus Hari Ram ...Respondents/plaintiff... Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Ms. Madhurika Shekhon, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The challenge by the appellant-defendant is to the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Civil Suit No.48 of 2023. The learned Single Judge allowed the appellant-defendant to file the written statement subje 2025:HHC:20580ct to the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund before the next date of hearing. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:20580 - 2 - 2. The reasoning given, as such, for the imposition of cost was that the written statement has not been filed, though it had been noticed on 28.03.2024 that last opportunity has been granted subject to the cost of Rs.5,000/-. Instead of depositing the cost, the present appellant-defendant had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for waiving off the amount. 3. Resultantly, learned Single Judge has noticed that on an earlier occasion on 14.12.2023, the matter was adjourned for 11.01.2024 and the written statement has not been filed. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for 28.03.2024 when the conditional order was passed. In such circumstances, it was held that there is no justifiable cause to waive off the cost and the application, as such, bearing CMP No.214 of 2024 was dismissed and the defence of the defendant was struck off. 4. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in Kushal Jethi versus Ravinder Parihar and others 2020 SCC Online HP 3631, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the H.P. High Court (Original Side) Rules providing the fixed time 2025:HHC:20580 - 3 - frame, as such, under Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the High Court Rules, written statement was required to be filed and appropriate application should have been filed for extension of time, which was not done, eventually costs had been imposed and opportunity had been given. 5. We have followed the said view in LPA No.494 of 2024 titled as Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd Vs. Tulsi Dass decided on 23.05.2025, whereby opposition was similarly made that reply had not been filed within the given time as per Rules 2 and 3, therefore, right to file written statement without filing an appropriate application could not be given. We thus upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had imposed costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited in Himachal Pradesh Advocates’ Welfare Fund in order to entitle the defendant as such to defend the suit keeping in mind the fact that the plaintiff cannot be given a walkover as such regarding the dispute in question which was also regarding specific performance of an agreement to sell. It is also the case herein. Relevant para of the judgment in Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd supra reads as under:- “10. In Khushal Jethi’s case supra, the learned Single 2025:HHC:20580 - 4 - Judge of this Court, vide order dated 03.09.2020, 9 while relying upon Rules 3 and 4 had repelled the arguments of the plaintiff to object to filing of the written statement and held that the last opportunity be given to file written statement within three weeks and also written statement already on record was permitted to be taken on the record while disposing of the application that the written statement not be taken on record. The matter had further been taken in appeal before the Division Bench in Khushal Jethi’s case which has already been referred by the learned Single Judge and it has been held that procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant and an aid to justice and meant to facilitate the cause of justice and not to cover or obstruct and not to shut the door of justice to the parties at the threshold. 11. Once Rule 4 as such provides for payment of cost and the defendant can be allowed to defend on payment of cost to the plaintiff in such case it was in the discretion of the learned Single Judge as such to have allowed the application which has been rightly 10 done, keeping in view the fact that it was not filed within the time prescribed at the first instance which was four weeks, given by the Court and thereafter on 15.06.2023 at the second instance by the Additional Registrar (J). The provisions of Rule 4 are thus apparently to meet the ends of justice, in view of the settled principle of law that the Rules and procedure are meant to meet the ends of justice and not to obstruct the same.” 6. In FAO No.4 of 2025, titled Shahnaz Begam versus Dharam Pal, decided on 24.06.2025, in similar circumstances also we allowed the appeal and granted permission to file the written statements, subject to payment of costs. Keeping in mind that the rules of procedure are handmaids of justice, it is to be kept in mind that the suit was filed for recovery by way of 2025:HHC:20580 - 5 - damages for Rs.1,05,00,000/- and the plaintiff cannot be given a walkover regarding the issue since serious civil consequences would arise out of the same. 7. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge is well justified in passing the said order. However, keeping in view the basic principle in mind that the Rules of procedure are hand-maids of justice, we allow the present appeal with a condition that a sum of Rs.5,000/- be deposited within four weeks from today as ordered by learned Single Judge. The written statement is allowed to be taken on record. 8. Keeping in view the above, the appeal is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 26, 2025 [himani/shivender]