IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.463 of 2022 Decided on 06th October, 2025 Tulsi Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC in Civil Suit No.90-1 of 2012 titled as Tulsi Ram and another versus The State of H.P., may kindly be set aside and the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 30.06.2022, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3), of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned Court below stands dismissed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the order under challenge as well as other documents appended with the application, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the impugned order so as to interfere therewith under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 demonstrates that its mentioned therein that at the time of the preparation of the arguments in the matter, it was noticed that there was some evidence on record in terms whereof a dispute was demonstrated to have arisen due to some demarcation conducted by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Namhol on 02.02.2011 showing certain encroachment by the petitioner on 3 the Government land. It is further mentioned in the application that a report was submitted by a Local Commissioner in the High Court, in terms whereof, no encroachment by the petitioner on Government land comprised in Khasra Nos.154 and 155 was found. In this backdrop, a prayer was made to allow the petitioner to place on record the documents mentioned therein which could not be produced with the plaint nor which were mentioned in the list of documents as they were not in the possession of the petitioner. 5. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application by inter alia returning the following findings:- “I have heard the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties. Sub Rule 1 of Order 7 Rule 14 enjoins the plaintiff to produce at the time of institution of the suit all documents, which he sues or relies upon. Sub Rule 3 lays down the consequence of failure to produce such documents and Sub Rule 2 states that where a document is not in possession of the plaintiff, he shall state that in whose possession such document is/was. The primary object of Rule 14 is to exclude and shut out suspicious documents. The applicant admittedly wants to place on record the statement of Anupam Kumar, who had been appointed as a Local Commissioner for conducting the demarcation of the land of the applicants comprised in Khasra No. 154 and the government land comprised in Khasra No. 155, but perusal of the plaint goes on to show that the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.4,94,000/- from the 4 respondent and pertains to toilets, water tank and septic tank, which are stated to be over Khasra No. 151. It has not been clarified as to how the demarcation, which was conducted with regards to the Khasra Nos. 154 and 155 would help this Court for adjudicating the present suit, which pertains to the recovery of Rs. 4,94,000/-, that too of the land of the applicants comprised in Khasra No. 151. The other documents proposed to be placed on record by the applicants pertains to the year 2011 and although the applicants claim that these documents were not in his power and possession, he has not been able to explain as to why he was not in possession of these documents, which pertain to the year 2011, whereas the present suit was filed in the Month of November, 2012. The present case has been at the stage of arguments since 17.03.2018 and this is the second application filed by the applicant under the provision of. Order 7 Rule 14(3), CPC and this Court is of the considered view that the respondent has rightly pointed out in his reply that the documents proposed to be placed on record cannot be allowed to be placed on the file and read in evidence at this belated stage, especially when they do not have any link with the present lis. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed, being devoid of merits. Now to come up for arguments on 25.07.2022.” 6. Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 5 7. In terms of the impugned order, learned Trial Court has inter alia held that whereas the suit filed by the plaintiff was for recovery of Rs.4,94,000/- from the respondent relating to toilets, water tank and septic tank which were upon Khasra No.151, whereas the demarcation report which was being proposed to be placed on record was relating to Khasra Nos. 154 and 155. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that these findings returned by the learned Trial Court were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. Similarly, it could also not be explained as to why other documents which related to the year 2011 were not filed either alongwith the plaint or within some reasonable time thereafter. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not in possession of these documents cannot be believed as all these documents are public documents and therefore, it is not as if these documents were not in existence earlier. Not only this, a perusal of the application demonstrates that it is conspicuously silent as to how otherwise these documents either came into the knowledge or in the possession of the petitioner now at the time when the application was filed 6 under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. This all demonstrates that the endeavor of the petitioner was nothing but to fill the lacuna which is not permissible under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code as the intent of the Section is not to allow the parties to take advantage of their own acts of omission. 8. In this backdrop, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 06, 2025 (Vinod)