IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 1114 of 2019 Decided on: 25.03.2025 ____________________________________________________ Noor Bibi @ Fazal Bibi ……….. petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.1/Union of India. : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 i.e. Annexure P-4 appended alongwith the present petition. 2. Heard counsel for the parties i.e. petitioner/plaintiff and respondents No. 1 and 2. 3. Insofar as respondents No.3 to 17 are concerned, they have not been served before this Court. The petitioner had preferred a suit qua declaration to the effect that the petitioner had become owner in possession of the suit land. Consequential 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been sought in the said suit. 4. The impugned order in the case at hand was passed on 24.12.2019. On the said date, the matter was listed for examination of defendants’ witnesses. On the same date, an application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC had been filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2. By virtue of the said application, certain jamabandies and certified copies of certain judgments were sought to be placed on record. 5. From a perusal of order dated 24.12.2019, it is evident that the present petitioner/plaintiff and other respondents No. 3 to 17/defendants were afforded an opportunity to file a reply. The application was received on 24.12.2019 in the forenoon session. Right to filing reply to the present petitioner/plaintiff and respondents No. 3 to 17/defendants before the trial Court was granted till the post lunch session on 24.12.2019. 6. The reason for listing the matter in the afternoon sessions being that the matter was an old matter and a targeted matter, therefore, half day’s time for filing reply was sought to be justified by the trial Court on account of the matter being a targeted case. 7. From the facts and attending circumstances narrated hereinabove, I find substance in the argument of the 3 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that an adequate effective opportunity of hearing/filing reply qua application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC filed by the present respondent No. 1 and 2 had not been afforded to the present petitioner by the trial Court. 8. In view thereof, impugned order dated 24.12.2019 is quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 3rd April, 2025. Insofar as respondents No. 3 to 17/defendants No. 3 to 17 before the trial Court are concerned, appropriate process shall be issued by the trial Court for ensuring their appearance through their counsels. Their presence shall be ensured immediately by 10th of April, 2025. Reply to the application shall be filed by the contesting parties on or before 21st April, 2025. Application shall be heard and decided by the trial Court subject to its convenience latest by the month of May, 2025. Post decision of the application, defendants to ensure the presence of their witnesses at the earliest. Being a targeted case, trial Court shall dispose of the matter at the earliest as per its own convenience. 9. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous, if any, also stands disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge March 25, 2025 tarun