2025:HHC:13589 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 69 of 2018 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 Agya Ram .....Petitioner. Versus Kamla Devi & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 8. None for respondents No.2(a) to 2(e). Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, whereby an application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the petition and documents appended thereto. 3. The suit, in the case at hand, has been filed by respondents No.1 and 2 before the trial Court. In the suit so filed, a declaration qua wrong revenue entries made with respect to the suit land in favour of the present petitioner and respondents No.3 to 8 has been challenged. Ownership of the suit land is being claimed by respondents No.1 and 2 along with respondents No.9 to 14, in the case at hand. Besides the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:13589 aforesaid, a permanent prohibitory injunction is being also sought against the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 8 4. The said suit was filed in the year 2010. Evidence insofar as the defendants/petitioner is concerned, was closed before the trial Court on 05.03.2016. Seven opportunities had been accorded to the defendants/petitioner and respondents No.3 to 8 to lead evidence. 5. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) was allowed and thereafter again an opportunity was given to the defendants i.e. present defendants/petitioner and respondents No.3 to 8 to lead and adduce evidence in rebuttal. However, no rebuttal evidence was adduced. Yet again, the evidence of the defendants/petitioner and respondents No.3 to 8 had been closed on 20.09.2017 and the matter was posted for final arguments. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was filed by the present petitioner for placing on record copy of FIR bearing No.281 dated 16.12.2014 and spot map dated 26.12.2014 prepared during the investigation of the aforesaid FIR. 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court has correctly observed that at the time of adducing evidence these documents prepared in the year 2014 were well within the knowledge of the present petitioner. However, no reason has been mentioned in the application justifying the 3 2025:HHC:13589 gross delay in producing the same at the fag end of the trial. Besides the map sought to be placed on record has been made by the police and not by an expert, revenue authority. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, I see no error of law in the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, therefore, the present petition is dismissed, as so also the pending application(s), if any. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.05.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 09th May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)