2025:HHC:46566 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 120/2026 Decided on: 22.06.2026 Prabhu Lal …..Petitioner Versus Ram Padam & anr. …Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order dated 24.02.2026, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, H.P., whereby an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 151 CPC seeking permission of the court to lead additional evidence and examine proforma defendant as witness, came to be allowed. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is son of defendant No.1, born from the womb of proforma defendant with loins of defendant No.1. Further decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought restraining defendant No.1 from depriving the plaintiff from his entitlement of fatherhood, rights and entitlement being his son in any manner whatsoever. 3 The said suit was duly contested by defendant/respondent No.1 by filing written statement, wherein all the averments as made in the suit were refuted and specifically denied. It was averred that mother of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, namely, Padam Dassi, proforma defendant/respondent No.2 was married to one Pratap Singh of Village Katgaon and out of such wedlock, plaintiff was born. Since Padam Dassi had never been divorced as per law and custom by said Pratap Singh till date, she remains to be wife of said person. Therefore, it is conclusive proof that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Pratap Singh. Fatherhood, as claimed by the plaintiff, was specifically denied in the written statement. 3 4 The suit came to be filed on 15.09.2021 and defendant No.1 filed written statement on 21.09.2022. 5 As admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that after framing of issues by the learned trial court, the parties were directed to adduce their respective evidence in support of their contentions. Learned trial court after recording evidence of the parties, kept the case for final arguments. It is also fairly conceded that final arguments were heard and the case was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment. All of a sudden, on 13.05.2025 an application under Section 151 CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking leave of the Court to lead additional evidence and examine proforma defendant. Said application came to be contested by the present petitioner by filing a detailed reply. 6 The learned trial court vide its order, dated 24.02.2026, allowed the application as filed by the plaintiff. 7 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, defendant No.1 has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8 It is contended by Mr. V. S. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for the 4 petitioner/defendant No.1, that application in question, which came to be filed at the fag end of trial, was not maintainable in its present form. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 after about more than 40 years, therefore, suit itself is not maintainable. He has submitted that prior to institution of the application in question, plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed an application for conducting DNA test, however, the same was dismissed by the learned trial court on 05.05.2025. Dismissal of the application came to be assailed before this Court by way of CMPMO No. 218/2025 and this Court vide its judgment dated 20.08.2025 dismissed the said petition filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1. He would further urge that repeated applications are being filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on one pretext or the other to prolong the matter unnecessarily. After dismissal of the application for conducting DNA test, present application has been filed just to fill up lacunae in the evidence of the parties. 9 On the other hand, Mr. K. B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has defended the impugned order. He has submitted that after dismissing the 5 instant petition, the parties may be relegated to the learned trial court for adducing additional evidence. 10 Before coming to merits of the case, it would be noticed that admittedly the suit for declaration came to be filed by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant No.1 is father of the plaintiff and he was born from the loins of defendant No. 1 and proforma defendant. The said fact has been duly refuted by defendant No.1 in his written statement. 11 In order to prove paternity, an application for conducting DNA test was filed by the plaintiff/respondent, however, as observed above, the same came to be dismissed by the learned trial court on 05.05.2025. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent approached this court by filing CMPMO No. 218/2025, challenging therein the order dated 05.05.2025, however this Court vide its judgment dated 20.08.2025 too dismissed the said petition. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence. 12 As rightly urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 that the learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, has neither discussed contents of 6 the application nor even touched contents of the reply as filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. Primarily, the impugned order is non speaking order as the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the entire material placed on record by the petitioner/defendant No.1. 13 As fairly conceded by learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent No.1 that reasons ought to have been assigned by the learned trial court while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. 14 Therefore, solely on this ground, impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside by restoring the application to its original number filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Section 151 CPC with direction to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and taking into consideration the pleadings as placed on record by the respective parties and take the application to its logical end. Ordered accordingly. 15 Consequently, the present petition is allowed and after quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.02.2026, the parties are relegated to the learned trial court. 7 16 The parties undertake to appear before the learned trial court on 14.07.2026. 17 Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) 22nd June, 2026 Judge (pankaj)