IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.128/2022 Date of Decision: 16th December, 2025. Suman Lata .....Petitioner Versus Sukhdev and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.03.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge-II, Amb, District Una, HP, whereby an application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC, filed by the present petitioner/defendant for placing on record certain documents has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. Respondent No.1, in the case at hand, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the present petitioner and the present proforma respondents. The suit was filed in November, 2012. Written statement thereto was filed in January, 2013. In para 1 on merits of the written statement, it had been categorically averred that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 an appeal against the partition order, in the case at hand, passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, affirmed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Amb, Una, HP, in appeal, would be challenged in the near future before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. Hence, from the aforesaid, it is evident that at the time of filing of the written statement, no appeal had been filed before the learned Divisional Commissioner. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC was preferred by the present petitioner in September, 2019 for placing on record copy of the appeal preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, against the order of partition passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, and affirmed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Amb, Una, HP. 5. In response to the application, issue of maintainability was raised, as according to the present respondent No.1, there were no pleadings in this regard. Besides the aforesaid, it was pointed out that the partition inter se the parties had taken place way back in the year 2002. Partition had been sanctioned in the lifetime of the father of the present petitioner and proforma respondents. Appeal preferred against the order passed by the Assistant 3 Collector, First Grade, allowing partition had been dismissed by the Collector, Amb. 6. Order VIII Rule 1(A) CPC provides that where a defendant basis his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power he shall enter such document in a list and shall produce the same in the Court, when the written statement is presented by him. Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC, further provides that where a document, which is ought to be produced on Court by the defendant under Order VIII Rule 1(A) CPC is not so produced, then the same shall not without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf. 7. From the extract of the written reproduced herein above, it is evident that the appeal, which have been preferred before the learned Divisional Commissioner was not in existence, when the written statement had been filed. Written statement had been filed in January, 2013 and the application under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC was filed in September, 2019. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is evident that the defence of the petitioner before the learned trial Court was not based on the document now sought to be produced (appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner), even otherwise, the present petitioner could not have produced 4 the appeal filed before the learned Divisional Commissioner under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, as the same was not in existence, when the written statement was filed, therefore, invoking the provisions of under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC in the case at hand is misconceived. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, so also the miscellaneous pending applications, if any 10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 07.01.2026. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 16th December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)