2025:HHC:18931 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.108/2023 Date of Decision: 19th June, 2025. Arun Kumar Raghava .....Petitioner Versus M/s Smilax Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Kalaunta Devi, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to order dated 17.02.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, whereby an application filed under Order 8 Rule 1-A read with Section 151 CPC, by the present petitioner/defendant before the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. From a perusal of the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1-A read with Section 151 CPC, it is evident that the petitioner/defendant intended to place on record the appointment letter issued by the M/s Biogenteic Drugs Pvt. Ltd and Form-16, which shows the income of the present petitioner/defendant. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:18931 4. The plaint was filed in July, 2016 (Annexure P-1). A perusal of the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned trial Court reflects that the suit filed is for recovery against the petitioner/defendant. As per the contents of the plaint, the petitioner/defendant was appointed vide letter dated 15.04.2013. Recovery is being sought on account of non-compliance of terms and conditions of the letter of appointment (paras 3 and 9 of the plaint). 5. The written statement was filed in September 2017 (Annexure P-2). In the written statement filed, the stand of the petitioner/defendant qua the appointment letter dated 15.04.2013, is that the same bears forged and fabricated signatures of the petitioner/defendant. It is further submitted in the written statement that the letter of appointment had been issued on 13.03.2013, by the authorized signatory of M/s Biogenteic Drugs Pvt. Ltd and the same had not been signed by the petitioner/defendant. Subsequent thereto, issues were framed. The respondent/plaintiff have already led their evidence. Opportunity to lead evidence to the present petitioner/defendant had commenced on 28.12.2019. 6. In February, 2022, the present application under Order 8 Rule 1-A read with Section 151 CPC has been filed. 3 2025:HHC:18931 In terms of Order 8 Rule 1-A, where a defendant basis his defence upon documents or relies upon any documents in his possession, then he is required to enter such documents in a list to be filed along with the written statement and at the same time, produce such documents mentioned in the list along with the written statement. However, in terms of Order 8 Rule-1A, a document which ought to be produced in Court, but if not produced, then the same can be brought on record with the leave of the Court. 7. In the case at hand, it is evident that documents sought to be produced by virtue of an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A, were in existence prior to the suit being filed. However, the same were not produced along with the written statement. Subsequent thereto, issues were framed and evidence were led by the plaintiff/respondent in the case at hand. The present petitioner was granted opportunity to lead the evidence. Despite having being granted aforesaid opportunities, the present petitioner/defendant before the trial Court did not produce the documents as have been sought to be produced along with the application under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC 8. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has correctly observed that no mention of these documents 4 2025:HHC:18931 now sought to be brought on record has been mentioned in the written statement filed by the present petitioner/defendant. Photocopies of the documents are sought to be brought on record at this belated stage. It has been correctly observed by the learned trial Court that conspicuous by absence in the application filed for bringing on record, the documents is the relevance of the same to the lis in the case at hand. No reason has been mentioned in the application, as to why the said documents despite due diligence could not be brought on record earlier. 9. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 10. Besides the aforesaid, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and 5 2025:HHC:18931 Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 11. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in- above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court below on 28.06.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th June, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)