IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 747 of 2024 Decided on : 07.03.2025 Gautam Thakur .…Petitioner. Versus Sonam Angmo and Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner :Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents :Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karanveer Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. :Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 4. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Mr. Karanveer Thakur, learned counsel, appears for respondents No. 1 to 3. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5252 ) 2. Heard. 3. By way of instant petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed order dated 19.10.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 139 of 2025, whereby a common order has been passed to decide two separate applications one being under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner for placing on record original of agreement dated 10.12.2010 and the other for leading additional evidence to prove the execution of said documents. 4. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties has rejected both the prayers made by the petitioner, who is defendant before learned Trial Court, primarily, on the premise that the petitioner had failed to show the relevance of the documents sought to be placed on record or proved. It has been specifically observed by the learned Trial Court that the documents sought to be placed on record does not relate to the suit land and further the petitioner had 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5252 ) not placed on record any material to show that the said documents would be necessary for adjudication of the case. 5. I have not found anything on record to suggest that the observation made by learned Trial Court is illegal or perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner though strenuously argued that the document could not be stated to be totally irrelevant however, he also has not been able to show any material to substantiate his contention. 6. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, of this Court is restrictive and can be exercised only where there is gross illegality or perversity conducted by the Courts or Tribunals. In the case at hand, I do not find any illegality much less perversity in the impugned order. It also cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5252 ) 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 7h March, 2025 Judge (sushma)