IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 18 of 2025 Decided on: 26.03.2025 Shakuntla Devi and Ors. .…Petitioner. Versus Jaswinder Singh (deceased) through his LRs. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a) to 1 (c). Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, order dated 11.11.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Una, H.P. in CMA No. 3240 of 2024 in Civil Suit No. 1810 of 2013, has been put to challenge. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:7802 ) 2. Petitioners are the defendants before learned Trial Court. After conclusion of evidence of both the sides, petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was prayed that the petitioners/defendants be allowed to place and prove on record the original relinquishment deed dated 21.09.2007, executed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi in favor of Sh. Onkar Singh and Sh. Mohinder Singh. 3. It was averred in the application that at the time of preparing arguments it came to the notice of the counsel for the defendants that the original relinquishment deed was not on record. Only the certified copy of the said document was stated to be on record, that too, produced by the respondents/plaintiffs. It was further averred that the present and proof of relinquishment deed dated 21.09.2007, was necessary to resolve the controversy between the parties. As per petitioners/defendants, 3 ( 2025:HHC:7802 ) despite exercise of due diligence, the said document could not be placed by them on record. 4. The application was contested by respondents/plaintiffs. 5. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order on the ground that the application was filed at belated stage when the matter was already fixed for hearing of final arguments. Petitioners/defendants despite having ample opportunities to file the said document at relevant time had not done so. On such premise, by holding the petitioners/defendants to be negligent in pursuing their case, the prayer has been declined. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert the fact that the application was moved by the petitioners/defendants when both the sides had concluded the evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments. 7. In the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no explanation 4 ( 2025:HHC:7802 ) as to why the said exercise could not be undertaken by defendants at earlier stages. It has only been submitted that the defendants could not place and prove the relinquishment deed dated 21.09.2007, due to inadvertence. 8. What can be inferred from the conduct of petitioners/defendants is that they have remained negligent in not producing the document and proving it in accordance with law at appropriate stage of the proceedings of the suit. The remissness of the petitioners/defendants is also evident from the fact that the certified copy of the relinquishment deed dated 21.09.2007, though had already been placed on record by plaintiffs, still no steps were taken by the petitioners/defendants to prove such document in accordance with law. 9. In such view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order passed by learned Trial Court. Parties cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrongs. The suit was originally filed in the year 2010, it has continued for next fifteen years. In such 5 ( 2025:HHC:7802 ) circumstances, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners/defendants. 10. In result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 26th March, 2025 Judge (sushma)