IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP No. 150 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2024 Reserved on 21.8.2025. Date of decision: 27.8.2024. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar ...Applicant/Plaintiff Versus Nishant Sharma ...Non-applicant/Defendant Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bushree Jain, Advocate. For the respondent : Defendant in person through Video Conferencing. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: By way of instant application, the applicant/ plaintiff has made a prayer for placing on record certain documents, as detailed in the application. 2. It is averred that the applicant/plaintiff as instituted a suit for damages on account of defamation against the non-applicant/defendant. In the written statement filed by the defendant, reference has been made to the orders passed by this Court in Cr.WP No. 14 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2023. It is alleged that the defendant has presented incomplete and selective facts and in order to present comprehensive and accurate picture, the orders passed and status reports filed in Cr.WP No. 14 of 2023 along with certain other orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Courts are required to be placed on record. According to the applicant, the inclusion of these documents is essential to counter the alleged incomplete narrative presented by the defendant and to place before this Court complete and correct context of the matter. 3. With above background, the documents relating to Cr.WP No. 14 of 2023, titled as, Court on its own motion vs. State of H.P. & others, status reports filed therein, documents pertaining to complaint under Section 499 and 500 of the IPC filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, FIR No. 350 of 2023 at Police Station, Sector 9A, Gurugram have been sought to be placed on record. In addition, certain other documents alleged to be relating to the financial condition of the applicant are sought to be placed on record to refute the allegations of the defendant -3- that the plaintiff along with his partner in Himachal Dastak was financially broke. 4. The non-applicant-defendant has filed his reply. It is averred that the application is not bonafide, as the applicant/plaintiff had earlier also moved one application for placing on record certain documents. Question as to relevance of documents, sought to be placed on record, has also been raised. The applicant/plaintiff is also stated to be lacking in due diligence. It is further alleged that the granting of prayer made in the application will prejudice the rights of the non-applicant/defendant. 5. At the time of hearing of the application, the non-applicant/defendant while appearing in person through virtual mode submitted that as regards, the order- sheets of various courts sought to be produced on record, he had no objection. However, he seriously objected to the production of other documents on the ground that the applicant/plaintiff had not come forward to produce all the status reports in sequence and his attempt to place on record selective status reports was not bonafide. It was alleged that the plaintiff did not want to present the clear factual aspect of the matter before the Court. To similar -4- aspect has been his objection to the orders of NCLT sought to be produced on record. As regards the documents proposed to be placed on record by way of the instant application, showing financial condition of the applicant/plaintiff, the non-applicant/defendant has tried to meet the contents thereof on merits. 6. Having perused and considered the records and rival submissions, I am of the considered view that in so far as the objection, as raised by the non- applicant/defendant, touching upon evidentiary value of the documents need not be gone into at this stage. The plaintiff is seeking the production of documents only and mere production will not absolve the plaintiff from burden of proving the contents thereof in accordance with law. 7. The defendant has not denied the relevance of the documents, sought to be produced by plaintiff, to the controversy inter-se the parties. Rather, the defendant has made submission that the complete sequence of status reports filed in Cr.W.P. 14 of 2023 will be helpful in adjudication. 8. Noticeably, the issues have not yet been framed in the instant suit. The applicant/plaintiff has claimed -5- that the filing of documents has been necessitated due to the averments made in the written statement in respect of the proceedings in Cr.WP No. 14 of 2023 and also with respect to the financial condition of the applicant/plaintiff. This aspect of the matter has not been denied by the non- applicant/defendant, rather he has stated that the defence raised by him by way of written statement is correct. 9. The parties are yet to go into the trial of the suit. Mere filing of documents at this stage is not going to prejudice the right of non-applicant/defendant. Once the applicant/plaintiff is permitted to place on record the documents as prayed in the application, the non- applicant/defendant shall also be having right to place on record such documents, as according to him are necessary to prove his point of view and more particularly, the objection that the applicant/plaintiff is seeking to file only selective documents on record. 10. The suit is for damages on account of defamation and in such circumstances, it cannot be prima facie held at this stage of the suit that the documents sought to be produced on record by the applicant/plaintiff by way of this application will be wholly irrelevant. -6- 11. In result, the application is allowed. The documents as prayed for are ordered to be placed on record, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th August, 2024 Judge (kck)