2025:HHC:40938 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.138 of 2025 Decided on : 1 st December, 2025. Pushpa Devi & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Mata Prashad & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. B.L. Soni and Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocates. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Aggrieved against order dated 07.07.2025 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 220/21/2012 titled as ‘Pushpa Devi and Ors. vs. Mata Prashad and Ors.’, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed instant petition invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Learned trial Court vide impugned order had closed the opportunity of applicant/plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has made a reference to an ofÏce order dated 18.01.2025 issued by learned trial Court whereby the cases fixed on that date were ordered to be listed on future dates due to unavailability of the Presiding OfÏcer. On the basis of this ofÏcer order, it has been asserted that the petitioner/ plaintiff was not clear about his obligation to examine his witness, if any, in rebuttal on the date fixed vide ofÏcer order dated 18.01.2025. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Soni, learned counsel for respondents/defendants has raised an objection as to maintainability of the petition itself. It has been submitted that no case for interference in the revisional jurisdication is made out as it does not fall within the purview of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Though, this Court is neither convinced as to the reasons for non-examination of witness in rebuttal by the …2… 2025:HHC:40938 petitioner/plaintiff, nor about the maintainability of the petition, yet, keeping in view the controversy and issues involved in the matter, to save interest of justice and further delay in the proceedings, the following order in my considered view will be expedient in the interest of justice, for the reason that a Will has been set up by defendants and plaintiff seeks to rebut the evidence led by defendants to prove the Will. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff has made a submission that the petitioner/plaintiff intends to examine only one witness namely, Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, who is one of the marginal witnesses of will-in-question. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside with direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to examine said Sanjeev Sharma as his witness in rebuttal before learned trial Court on 18.12.2025 by producing him on self-responsibility. It is made clear that the petitioner/plaintiff shall have no right to examine any other witness and further, in case, he fails to examine the witness as …3… 2025:HHC:40938 ordered by this Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 18.12.2025, no further opportunity shall be given. 6. The instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 1st December, 2025. (Vriti) …4… 2025:HHC:40938