2025:HHC:15626 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.1113/2019 Date of Decision: 23rd May, 2025 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Bhakti Devi & Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Vikas Mishra, Advocate, for respondents No.6 and 7. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.12.2019, whereby an application under Section 151 filed by respondents No.1 to 4 for leading additional evidence has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the petition and documents appended along with. 3. Evidence, in the case at hand, was concluded on 23.05.2019. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments on 28.05.2019, 03.06.2019, 07.06.2019, 24.06.2019, 04.07.2019, 26.07.2019, 21.08.2019, 09.09.2019, 21.10.2019, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:15626 05.11.2019 and 22.11.2019. Subsequent thereto on 26.11.2019, when the matter was listed, the present application had been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Reply thereto by the concerned respondents was filed on 10.12.2019. On the same date, the matter was heard and the impugned order passed. 4. In the application filed for leading additional evidence, it has been averred that it has come to the knowledge of the applicant/respondent No.1 that one Hirday Aukta had taken applicant Nos.2 and 3/respondents No.2 and 3 along with deceased husband of applicant/respondent No.1 (Rajesh Verma) to IGMC Hospital Shimla after the accident. It is averred that the said Hirday Aukta was the person who reached the spot and rescued applicants No.2 and 3/respondent No.2 and 3 from the spot. Hence, it is pleaded that being a material witness he needs to be examined. In response to the said application, it has been categorically averred that the filing of the present application shows complete lack of bona fide/due diligence on the part of respondents No.1 to 4 in filing the same. 5. It is averred in the reply that at the time of the occurrence/accident respondent No.1, was travelling in the ill- fated vehicle. Hence, the fact i.e. Hirday Aukta was the first individual, who reached the spot to rescue the applicants/respondents No.2 and 3, was all along known to the applicant/respondent No.1. 3 2025:HHC:15626 6. Order 18 Rule 17A, which has now been deleted with effect from 01.07.2002 provided for production of evidence previously not known or which could not be produced despite due diligence. In the absence of the aforesaid provision, power under Section 151 of the Code (inherent power) is available, however, the same is not intended to be used routinely and merely for the asking. The same can be exercised only when the application is found to be bona fide, the Court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid, sufficient reasons and filing of the application under Section 151 is not a protracting tactic. In this respect reference can be made to 2011 (11) SCC 275, titled K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy. 7. In the application filed for leading additional evidence, in the case at hand, no valid/sufficient reasons have been cited for non-production of the same earlier. The fact now sought to be adduced as evidence was well within the knowledge of applicant/respondent No.1, who had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal below, as she was one of the occupants of the ill-fated vehicle in which her husband had died and her children had been extricated from the ill-fated vehicle by one Hirday Aukta and had been taken to IGMC hospital for treatment. 8. Want of diligence is writ large, in the case at hand, as after a protracted trial at the stage of final arguments the application in the case at hand has been filed to lead evidence with respect to a fact, which was known by the 4 2025:HHC:15626 respondents/applicants right since the very beginning/inception. Due diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. The term “due diligence” determines the scope of a party’s constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to be outcome of the suit. In this respect, a reference can be made 2012 (2) SCC 300, titled J. Samuel & Ors. Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others. 9. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstance, the application is found to be not bona fide, is devoid of reasons for non-production earlier and the same has been filed only to protract the litigation, therefore, the present petition is allowed, impugned order dated 10.12.2019 is quashed and parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court through their counsels on 26.05.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 23rd May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)