2025:HHC:29972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.112 of 2022 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Sh. Mohinder Kumar & others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Ashok Kumar & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Khube Ram Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. respondent No.3 is stated to be dead. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.4 and 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 15.12.2021, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Shimla, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed under Order VIII, Rule (1-A) (3) of the Civil Procedure Code by the respondents herein stands allowed by the learned Court below. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order is per se perverse as learned Court below erred in not appreciating that by way of the application, the applicants intended to place on record a technical report belatedly without any 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29972 explanation as to why the same could not be placed on record earlier. Learned Counsel submitted that without appreciating that in the event of the application being allowed, grave prejudice could have been caused to the petitioners, the application was allowed and that too, by passing a non-speaking order as the contentions raised by the petitioners in the reply filed to the application have not been considered in the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no perversity in the impugned order as the same was allowed in the larger interest of justice. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that all that was done by the learned Court below was that it allowed the parties to place on record the documents and placing on record of the documents per se does not mean that the contents thereof or the same otherwise stands admitted. The other party always gets an opportunity to rebut the correctness thereof. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022, titled Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. Versus Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr, decided on 17.05.2022. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as also 3 2025:HHC:29972 learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of this case, this petition deserves to be allowed. This is for the reason that as it is not in dispute that the application to place on record the documents was filed in the year 2019 and the documents pertains to the year 2012 and an objection was taken in the reply filed to the said application with regard to the delay in filing the application to place on record said documents, the least that was expected from the learned Court below was to have had dwelled on the contentions that were raised in the reply and thereafter, pass an order forming an opinion, reflecting that the contentions of both the sides stood considered by the learned Court below. 5. In the absence of same being done, as the impugned order, therefore, can be termed to be a non-speaking order, the same is accordingly set aside, however, with the observations that the application filed under Order VIII, Rule (1-A) (3) of the Civil Procedure Code stands revived and the same shall be heard by the learned Court below on the basis of the pleadings already on record and be disposed of by passing a reasoned order. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the merit of the respective contentions of the parties and the application shall be 4 2025:HHC:29972 decided by the learned Court below uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the present proceedings. The parties through Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court concerned on 24.09.2025. Endeavour shall be made by the learned Court below to decide the application on or before 30.11.2025. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (Rishi)