1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 732 of 2025 Decided on: 31.8.2026 Rakesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Kumar Sood …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Aanchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.11.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 619 of 2018, titled as, ‘Sanjeev Kumar Sood versus Rakesh Kumar’. 2 2 By way of order dated 29.11.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, filed by the petitioner, under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis hereinafter are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as borne out from the record, may be summed up as under: Plaintiff Sanjeev Kumar Sood has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from encroaching upon and raising any unauthorized and illegal construction above 3rd floor, i.e. roof of the building, known as ‘Nanak Bhawan’ constructed upon old Khasra No. 47 and new Khasra No. 226, measuring about 240-39 hectares, situated in Mohal Bharari, Tehsil Shimla (Urban) District Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 3 5. After completion of the pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed the issues, and thereafter, plaintiff has led evidence. 6. When, the lis was pending for defendant’s evidence, then, the application under Order 8 Rule 1- A(3) CPC has been moved. By way of said application, following documents have been sought to be placed on record: “1. Certified copy of the inspection report supplied under RTI vide letter No. MCS/AST/2025-1589 dated 14/8/2025 by the PIO Assistant Secretary (Tax) MC Shimla. 2. Certified copy of the Notice under RTI under section 101 of the HPMC Act 1994 vide letter No.MCS/Comm/Secy.Tax/2025-1672 dated 1/9/2025. 3) Certified copy of the inquiry report dated. 20/9/2023 submitted by Director Urban Development H.P. 4) Certified copy of the sanction letter No. MCS/AP/6W/Comm/3538 dated 27/9/1990. 5) Certified copy of the letter written by Sh. Ved Prakash to Commissioner on 29/7/1991. 6) Certified copy of the water connection sanctioned on 26/7/1991 and security deposited 27/9/1991. 7) 14 no's Photographs in original. 7. These documents were sought to be placed on record, for the just adjudication of the case and as per the defendant, he was not aware of these documents. 4 The aforesaid documents have been sought under the provisions of Right to Information Act. 8 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 9. The application has been contested by the plaintiff by highlighting the history of the previous applications, which were filed by the defendant. The another act, which has also been highlighted in the reply is that the application has been moved at the belated stage. 10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application 11. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 29.11.2025, has dismissed the application. 12. The said order dated 29.11.2025 has been assailed by way of present petition. 13. Provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) CPC are reproduced as under: “Order VIII R.1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him- 5 (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produce shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 13. The procedural law is meant for advancement of justice. The parties should be given opportunity to plead and prove their cases, so that the matter could be decided on merit. 14. Considering the fact that the defendant has obtained the information under the Right to Information Act, and the documents in issue are official record, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 15. With these observations, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 29.11.2025, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The defendant is permitted to produce the aforesaid documents, sought in application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC, on record. 16. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 15.9.2026, at 10:00 a.m. 6 17. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 18. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 19. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 31.8.2026 Judge Kalpana