( 2025:HHC:14093 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 101 of 2025 Decided on : 15 th May, 2025. Parkash Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Ishwar Dass &Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Loveneesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 254 of 2015, whereby the application of petitioners herein under Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC for placing on record additional documents has been rejected. 3. The application for placing on record additional documents admittedly was filed after both the sides had led their evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:14093 ) 4. As per the averments made in the application, it has been contended that the documents sought to be placed on record were not in power and possession of the plaintiffs/applicants and the record was very old and some of the documents were in Urdu. 5. Record reveals that the suit was filed in the year 2015. Plaintiffs/petitioners led evidence in affirmative and after the closure of evidence by defendants/respondents, also availed opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal and as a matter of fact one witness was examined by the plaintiffs as PW-5 in rebuttal. 6. In reply to the application, the defendants/respondents made a specific mention that the documents sought to be produced on record by the plaintiffs/petitioners were produced by them in an earlier suit, titled as Prakash versus Rama Ram and Ors, which was dismissed on 22.05.20212. Plaintiffs have not been able to controvert this specific assertion. Thus, except for the negligence of plaintiffs, there is nothing on record to suggest that the omission in filing the documents was bonafide. Even otherwise, it can be seen from the nature of documents sought to be produced that none of these documents can be read in evidence as it is, because jamabandis sought to be 3 ( 2025:HHC:14093 ) produced are in Urdu, their Hindi translation would be required to be proved. Similarly, the copies of mutations sought to be placed on record are also not per se admissible documents. The plaintiffs having failed to produce the documents for nine long years cannot take benefit of their own wrong. The proceedings of Civil Suit, initiated in the year 2015, cannot be allowed to prolong for indeterminate period. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Bhraham Dass vs. Onkar Chand and another, Latesh HLJ 2009(HP) 384 to canvass that the Court has to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the production of documents instead of scuttling it. Having gone through the judgment on which reliance has been placed, I am of the considered view that the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. The reopening of the trial was not in issue in the said case. The aspect of documents not being per-se admissible was also not considered in that case. 8. Learned trial Court has rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs primarily on the grounds that the application, if allowed will amount to reopening of the trial. The case being 4 ( 2025:HHC:14093 ) old, has also weighed with learned trial Court for refusing to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiffs. 9. Keeping in view the entirety of facts, I see no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and there is also no error of jurisdiction either. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 15th May, 2025. (jai)