JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioners-defendants have preferred this petition against impugned order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No.3 of 2023, whereby application bearing CMA No.303 of 2024 under Section 151 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908, filed by the petitioners-defendants to recall or review order dated 10.03.2022, has been dismissed. 2. Necessary facts for adjudication of present petition are that respondent-plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.72 of 2011 for recovery of Rs.75,41,221.56 and mandatory injunction in this High Court. 3. Vide order dated 07.01.2019, the Civil Suit was adjourned for taking steps for evidence in rebuttal, but instead of directing the petitioners-defendants, it was recorded in the said order that respondent-plaintiff was directed to take steps, whereupon respondent- plaintiff filed an application under Sections 151 & 152 CPC bearing OMP No.467 of 2019 for rectification of the mistake and accordingly, vide order dated 08.11.2019, petitioners-defendants were directed to produce evidence in rebuttal. 4. Thereafter, petitioners-defendants filed an application bearing OMP NO.468 of 2019 under Section 94 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 06.12.2019 directing Handwriting Expert to inspect the Court file, take necessary photographs of admitted and disputed documents, prepare his report and to record his statement in evidence. Handwriting Expert examined the record and prepared his report. However, because of COVID-19 pandemic, the case could not be listed prior to 06.10.2021 and on that day, petitioners-defendants were directed to take steps to enable the Registry to serve notice upon Handwriting Expert so as to ensure his presence for examination in rebuttal on the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). However, for want of taking steps, Handwriting Expert could not be served and matter was listed before Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 30.11.2021, and thereafter, on 10.03.2022 in the Court. 5. On 10.03.2022, for failure to take steps to summon the witnesses in rebuttal, right to lead evidence of petitioners-defendants in rebuttal was closed and matter was adjourned for final hearing in the month of July, 2022. 6. On 20.05.2022, application bearing OMP No.440 of 2022 was filed by the petitioners-defendants, seeking permission to examine Handwriting Expert in rebuttal on their own responsibility by recalling or reviewing order dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure P-7). 7. 6. On 20.05.2022, application bearing OMP No.440 of 2022 was filed by the petitioners-defendants, seeking permission to examine Handwriting Expert in rebuttal on their own responsibility by recalling or reviewing order dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure P-7). 7. Before adjudication of OMP No.440 of 2022, for notification of revised enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, the Civil Suit was transferred to District Judge, Una, vide order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the High Court. 8. District Judge, Una assigned the said suit to Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una (in short ‘ADJ’), and as such, application bearing OMP No.440 of 2022 filed by the petitioners- defendants was renumbered as CMA No.303 of 2024 and Civil Suit was assigned number as Civil Suit No.3 of 2023. 9. Reply to the aforesaid application on behalf of respondent- plaintiff was filed in August, 2023, whereafter the application has been dismissed by the ADJ/Trial Court vide order dated 01.08.2025. 10. Perusal of impugned order clearly depicts that after recording the facts and circumstances of the case and filing of the application for recalling and reviewing order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court, the ADJ/Trial Court has dismissed the application for recalling/reviewing order dated 10.03.2022 with observation that right to lead evidence in rebuttal, having been closed by the High Court vide order dated 10.03.2022, could not be re-opened by ADJ/Trial Court as the ADJ/Trial Court cannot recall/review the order dated 10.03.2022 being passed by the High Court. 11. ADJ/Trial Court had not adjudicated the application on merit, but had refrained from passing an order on merit because the order sought to be recalled/reviewed was passed by the High Court. 12. ADJ/Trial Court has lost sight that order dated 10.03.2022 was passed in the Civil Suit No.72 of 2011, which was being tried by the High Court by exercising its original side jurisdiction, as the said suit was filed in the High Court for the quantum of amount sought to be recovered in the Civil Suit was within range in pecuniary jurisdiction available with the High Court only and, therefore, at the time of passing order, High Court was exercising its jurisdiction as a Civil Court at first instance. After enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge, the Civil Suit No.72 of 2011 was transferred to District Judge, Una, and was assigned as Civil Suit No.3 of 2023 and the said suit is being adjudicated/tried by ADJ/Trial Court, as a Court at first instance by exercising its original side jurisdiction on the basis of pecuniary value of the suit for the recovery of amount for which the suit was and has been filed. 13. All orders passed by the High Court during adjudication of the Civil Suit before transfer, shall be treated as passed by the ADJ/Trial Court continuing adjudication of the suit at first instance. 14. Therefore, order dated 10.03.2022 was not passed by the High Court by exercising supervisory control or appellate/revisional jurisdiction, it was passed as a Court at first instance trying the Civil Suit. Now the suit stands transferred to the ADJ/Trial Court, therefore, ADJ/Trial Court is also trying the suit exercising its power as a Court at first instance. Thus, order dated 10.03.2022 has not to be treated as order by a superior Court, but equivalent Civil Court, and as such, there is no legal impediment in recalling or reviewing order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court in a Civil Suit, by the ADJ/Trial Court, after assignment of such Civil Suit on transfer of the same because of redetermination of pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try the suits. Thus, reason assigned for dismissing the application is erroneous, misconceived and impermissible. 15. Though ADJ/Trial Court has not decided the application on merit and the application can be remanded back to ADJ/Trial Court for deciding afresh on its own merit, however, keeping in view the fact that the suit was filed at the first instance in the year 2011 and we are in 2025, it would be appropriate to decide this application on merit, instead of remanding the matter to ADJ/Trial Court for deciding afresh. 16. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, including COVID-19 pandemic, and also the duty of the Court to ascertain truth by giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence so as to arrive at just decision after effective adjudication, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners-defendants may be given one, but the last, opportunity to lead evidence. 17. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, including COVID-19 pandemic, and also the duty of the Court to ascertain truth by giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence so as to arrive at just decision after effective adjudication, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners-defendants may be given one, but the last, opportunity to lead evidence. 17. Accordingly, petitioners-defendants are permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal, by way of last opportunity, on their own responsibility on the date to be fixed by ADJ/Trial Court on appearance of parties before ADJ/Trial Court on 05.01.2026, subject to payment of cost at Rs.30,000/- payable to respondent-plaintiff before ADJ/Trial Court on the date fixed for appearance for the parties, i.e. 05.01.2026. 18. Parties are directed to appear before ADJ/Trial Court on 05.01.2026 along with downloaded copy of this order and it is made clear that no fresh notices shall be issued to parties and on failure in appearance by either party, the Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. Needless to say that no further adjournment shall be granted on request of petitioners-defendants to lead evidence in rebuttal. 19. Parties are permitted to use copy of order downloaded from website of this High Court and Trial Court may verify passing of this order from the website of the High Court. 20. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.