IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.571 of 2024 Decided on 28th October, 2025 Krishan Bhagat and another …Petitioners Versus Sohan Lal and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : M/s Amit Kumar Dhumal and Parul Negi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate, for respondent No.1 and 2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants before the learned Trial Court to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted hereinbelow:- “A similar application was filed by the applicants/defendants No.1 and 2 which was dismissed this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024. The applicants/defendants have filed the present successive application to place on record documents without furnishing sufficient ground to explain as to why these documents were not placed on record at an earlier stage alongwith the written statement which was filed way back in the year 2015. The revenue record was always available and was not 2 beyond the reach of applicants/defendants No.1and 2. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present application and it is accordingly dismissed. Cost of Rs.1000/- is also imposed on the applicants/defendants No.1 and 2 for wasting the Court time by filing successive applications.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the application that was filed by the petitioners to place on record additional evidence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. 4. It is not in dispute that the application was filed belatedly that too after the case was listed for hearing on more than five to six occasions. The application does not demonstrates any due diligence on the part of the petitioners and the only explanation given therein as to why the petitioners should be permitted to lead additional evidence is that the plaintiff did not file the necessary documents alongwith the plaint and it was only during the course of the preparation of the case for arguments that the counsel representing the petitioners realized that certain material documents were not filed by filing the written statement which were key and material documents. This Court is of the considered view that a party cannot be allowed to approach the 3 Court at a belated stage seeking permission to file additional documents when prima facie earlier necessary documents were not be filed for no other reason but laxity of the party itself. If indulgence as is being prayed for by the petitioners is granted, then, this Court shall be granting the petitioners the premium of its own acts of omission and commission which would obviously prejudice the respondent herein. Therefore, admittedly, as there is no cogent explanation which has come forth from the petitioners as why the documents could not be placed on record earlier, learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application as it was filed at a belated stage. 5. In the light of above observations, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 28, 2025 (Vinod)