Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3424 (HP)

Sohan Singh v. Mohan Lal

2025-11-17

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 17.10.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1 Poanta Sahib, , in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE stands dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application without appreciating that as the documents, which the petitioners intended to place on record came into existence after the filing of the written statement, therefore, there was no dereliction as far as the petitioners are concerned, to bring the documents on record and due diligence was exercised by the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that otherwise also, as the documents were necessary for the adjudication of the suit, this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application. Learned counsel further submitted that the factum of some of the parties having died during the pendency of the proceedings and their legal representatives being brought on record consumed time, has also been ignored by the learned Court while passing the impugned order. No other point was urged. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the impugned order as well as the application which was filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the copy of plaint and written statement, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Civil Suit was filed in the month of March, 2013, as is evident from the copy of plaint Annexure P-2. Written statement thereto was filed by the present petitioners in the month of October, 2013, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. 4. The Civil Suit was filed in the month of March, 2013, as is evident from the copy of plaint Annexure P-2. Written statement thereto was filed by the present petitioners in the month of October, 2013, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. In terms of the application that was filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , a prayer was made to place on record the documents, which as per the petitioners came into existence after the filing of the civil suit as well as the written statement, details whereof are given in Para-2 of the application. The documents are sixteen in number. They include a certified copy of application for partition dated 19.06.2012, certified copy of partition dated 25.02.2014, certified copy of application for issuance of warrant of delivery of possession of the partition dated 23.06.2014, copy of warrant dated 11.05.2018, copy of police help dated 11.06.2019, copy of report of delivery of possession dated 14.06.2019, copy of Nakal Rojnamcha dated 14.06.2015 and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-16. Said application is dated 25.08.2025. There is not even a murmur in the application as to why the same was being filed in the year 2025, when the documents referred to therein relate to the period from 2012 to 2019. Not only this, the contents of the application that the documents which the petitioners intended to place on record came into existence after the filing of the civil suit and written statement is also a false narration made in the application, because, certain documents for example, copy of application for partition dated 19.06.2012 etc., were already existing even before the filing of the civil suit, what to say of the written statement. 5. Order 8 rule 1(3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1, but is not so produced, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the time of hearing. Obviously, if a party wants the Court to exercise its discretion vested in it, then, it has to demonstrate due diligence on its part and further the relevance of the documents qua the dispute in issue. 6. Obviously, if a party wants the Court to exercise its discretion vested in it, then, it has to demonstrate due diligence on its part and further the relevance of the documents qua the dispute in issue. 6. In the present case, neither due diligence has been exercised by the petitioners, as is evident from the fact that the application was filed in the year 2025, though, documents relate to the year 2012 to 2019 nor there is any mention in the application as to what is the relevance of said documents with the dispute which was pending before the Court concerned. 7. In this backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by the learned Trial Court, one finds no infirmity therein. The reasoning that has been given by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application is being quoted hereinbelow:- “In the present case, admittedly the documents sought to be filed on record pertain to the years 2012 to 2019, which is many years prior to the date of filing of the present application. In order to explain the delay in filing the present application, the only reason mentioned is that the said documents were not in existence at the time of filing of the written statement. Firstly that contention is not entirely true as some of the documents even pertained to the year 2012 whereas the written statement has been filed in the year 2013. Further, even if the other documents came into existence after filing of the written statement, there is no reason as to why no application was filed promptly for permission to bring them on record even after a delay of at least six years since 2019. Therefore, from the averments made in the application, it has to be said that the applicants have failed to show their due diligence in filing of the present application after a long delay. Further, as far as the necessity of the aforesaid documents for the purpose of adjudication of the present case is concerned, no reason thereof whatsoever has been given in the application. Further, none of the said documents have been relied upon in the written statement. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties also shows that in the plaint, it is alleged that in the Jambandi for the year 1970-1971, the shares of Sh. Sada and Sh. Sukad were increased unauthorizedly. Further, none of the said documents have been relied upon in the written statement. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties also shows that in the plaint, it is alleged that in the Jambandi for the year 1970-1971, the shares of Sh. Sada and Sh. Sukad were increased unauthorizedly. As such, the dispute pertains to the year 1970-1971. The documents regarding partition sought to be filed through the present application pertains to the year 2012 to 2019 and have no bearing with respect to the dispute qua the alleged unauthorized increase in the shares of the aforesaid jamabandi for the year 1970-1971. Thus, this Court is of the view that documents sought to be filed through the present application are not necessary for adjudication of the present suit. Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed. Application stands disposed of. It after due completion and registration be tagged with the main case file for record.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that the findings so returned by the learned Trial Court were either perverse or not borne out from the record of the case. That being so, as this Court concurs with the reasoning that has been given by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application, because, the order is a reasoned order and learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application that was filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.