1 2025:HHC:8363 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.31 of 2025 Date of Decision 28.03.2025 Digvijay Singh Guleria .....Petitioner. Versus Sanjay Kaushal …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) Heard. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the right of the petitioner to file written statement has been closed, the petitioner has filed instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside such order. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.20,43,640/- against the petitioner/defendant, notice thereof was issued on 05.10.2023 for 18.12.2023. On 18.12.2023, the petitioner appeared through his 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:8363 counsel and the matter was thereafter listed on 16.01.2024 for filing the written statement. It is not in dispute that even in the four proceedings that took place, the petitioner did not file the written statement. 3. Now the petitioner has come with cock and bull story to state that on 26.09.2024 even though his written statement was ready, but he wanted to finalize the same by tallying the plaint that was available with him. I really fail to understand as to how the petitioner would create such a imaginary story and expect it to be accepted by the Court. Given the fact that in case the written statement indeed has been prepared by the petitioner then I really wonder why the same has not been filed alongwith the appropriate application trying to show and prove his bonafide by stating that even though he had prepared the written statement, but he still needed to check the authenticity and correctness of the plaint that was available with him. 4. Another story cooked up by the petitioner was that even though he requested the Court to pass over the matter yet the Court still proceeded to pass the order which is clearly belied from the perusal of order sheet, which goes to indicate that the defendant was duly represented by the Advocate at both the two occasions where two separate orders came to be passed by the learned trial Court. It requires no rocket science or solomon's wisdom to appreciate as to why the instant petition has been filed. The defendant is facing recovery suit and is thus obviously avoiding and trying to delay the same. 5. In view of aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated herein above, I not only find no merit in the case but also find that the petition 3 2025:HHC:8363 is nothing but a gross abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 28th March, 2025 (veena) .