IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 637 of 2024 Decided on: 09.04.2025 Hans Raj .…Petitioner. Versus Rampa Devi …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has assailed order dated 23.09.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family, Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in CIS Case No. 411 of 2024, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for placing on record additional documents has been rejected. 2. Petitioner has filed the petition against respondent for dissolution of marriage by a decree of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9832 ) divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The grounds are cruelty and desertion. 3. By way of an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner sought leave of the learned Family Court to place on record documents which admittedly had been inexistence prior to the date of the filing of the petition. Petitioner made an averment that despite exercise of due diligence, he could not file the said documents earlier. 4. Indisputably, the application was moved by the petitioner after conclusion of evidence by both the sides and when the case was fixed for final arguments. 5. Respondent contested the petition and after hearing the parties, the same came to be dismissed vide impugned order on the grounds, firstly, that the petitioner in an earlier petition for divorce filed by him against respondent had placed reliance on the documents, which he now again sought to produce on record. Secondly, that the 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9832 ) exercise of due diligence at the end of petitioner is not made out as he had not been able to provide any reasons for omitting to file the documents at earlier stage of the proceedings. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also after going through the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not require any interference for the reasons that neither any illegality nor any perversity is made out. 7. Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vests the Court with jurisdiction to allow the prayer for filing of the documents, but such discretion has to be used judiciously. In the case at hand, even the error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order is not made out. As the petitioner had failed to give any reasons for a glaring omission made by him, the learned Trial Court had no material before him to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, it was not a case, where the documents had been lost or misplaced by the petitioner. It has been shown on record that the 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9832 ) petitioner had used all such documents in a previous litigation with the respondent. 8. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 9th April, 2025 Judge (sushma)