2025:HHC:26595 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.529/2024 Date of Decision: 07th August, 2025. Shahina Tabassum .....Petitioner Versus Mehboob Aalam and Anr. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: M/s Nitin Soni and Sunil Gautam, Advocates. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to order dated 04.07.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP in Civil Suit No.36 of 2014, whereby an application filed under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 15 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition. 3. The suit land, in the case at hand, comprises of Khasra Nos.649, 651, 661 and 662 kittas 4 measuring 03- 96, 91-40, 200-75, 64-80 sqr. Mtrs. comprised of Khata Khatauni No.204 min/325 min and 205/326 min as per extract of jamabandi 2013-14 of Muhal Naya Bazar Nahan. On the suit land there exists a triple storeyed building. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:26595 The same houses the residence of the respondents and a high school, which is alleged to be established by a Society i.e. New Era Education Society. The school is named New Era Academy High School. It is averred in the plaint that in order to obtain recognition of the School, a lease agreement has been entered into between the respondents and the New Era Academy through its then Principal i.e. the present petitioner. 4. Admittedly the present petitioner is the wife of respondent No.2. Relationships inter se the two are estranged. It is alleged in the plaint that a divorce inter se the two have taken place. Domestic violence proceedings exist inter se the two parties. 5. The present petitioner was appointed as a Principal of the school, in the case at hand. As per the averments made in the plaint, she has been removed both from the Society, which runs the school as well as from the post of Principal. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, plaint has been filed by the present respondents seeking the following reliefs:- (i) That a decree of possession on the basis of title be kindly passed against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs qua the suit property; (ii) A decree of mandatory injunction be passed against the defendant directing her to render the accounts regarding the school fee, funds/expenditure 3 2025:HHC:26595 etc. right after the expulsion till date which she received/incurred; (iii) That a decree for recovery of amount due after such rendition of accounts, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant; (iv) That a decree of permanent injunction be also awarded restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the suit property including the school and to deal with school affairs in future in any manner either personally or through her agents, servants and family members etc;” 7. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the suit filed by the respondents is pending since 2017. The application filed for discovery of documents has been filed at an advanced stage of the trial. However, in terms of Section 30 CPC, it is amply clear that an application seeking discovery can be filed at any time. An application for discovery under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC can be made only with respect to documents, which are in the possession of the other party and the same must relate to any matter in question in the pending suit inter se the parties. 8. The documents qua which the discovery is being sought pertain to appointment of the present petitioner as Principal of the school, resolution appointing a new Principal, byelaws of the New Era Society, funds spent on the construction of the school, expenses incurred on the functioning of the school and complaints made by present respondent No.2 against the present petitioner. In response filed to the application seeking discovery, it has 4 2025:HHC:26595 been averred that the same is frivolous qua the documents sought to be discovered nothing has been stated. 9. The trial Court has correctly observed that the said documents for which discovery is being sought has nowhere been demonstrated in the application to relate to any matter in question in the suit pending inter se the parties. Based on the aforesaid, the trial Court was satisfied that the discovery of such documents, in the case at hand is not necessary. 10. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 11. Besides the aforesaid, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and 5 2025:HHC:26595 Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 12. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in- above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 07th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)`