( 2025:HHC:16796 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 149 of 2025. Decided on : 30 th May, 2025. Vivek Sharma (Minor) and Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Ram Rakha & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate (through VC) and Ms. Ananya Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Mohit Jaitak, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). By way of instant petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una in Civil Suit No. 74 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs/petitioners herein have filed an application in the above noted suit under Order 18, Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code seeking leave to recall witness for proving the document pertaining to compensation 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:16796 ) received by defendant No.1 Shri Ram Rakha s/o Shri Lehroo Ram from the office of Land Acquisition Collector, Bhakra Dam, Bilaspur. It has been averred that though the witness from the aforesaid office was summoned at the time when the plaintiffs were leading evidence in affirmative but due to inadvertence the relevant record could not be exhibited as the witness had not brought the original. 3. By filing the reply to the application, the defendants have denied the averments made in the application generally. 4. Learned trial Court has rejected the prayer solely on the ground that the application was being filed belatedly at the stage when the case was fixed for arguments in rebuttal. Learned trial Court has also found the plaintiffs to be not vigilant enough and for such reason the application has been dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through entire record carefully. 6. Noticeably, the learned trial Court has not considered whether the evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiffs by recalling witness was relevant. In the absence of such findings, the prayer made in the application 3 ( 2025:HHC:16796 ) should not have been rejected merely on the ground that there was delay in filing the application. 7. It is also evident from the record that the defendants in their reply to the application have not specifically raised such an objection. It has also not been denied that the record was summoned by the plaintiff on earlier occasion, but the document could not be exhibited for want of original. That being so, it prima facie appears that the evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff has relevance to the issues involved in the matter. No doubt, the plaintiffs have not been vigilant in seeking their remedy at the earliest, however, I feel that for such lapse the substantive right should not be allowed to be scuttled. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the plaintiffs to summon the record from the office of Land Acquisition Collector, Bhakra Dam, Bilaspur with respect to the compensation received by defendant No.1 Shri Ram Rakha s/o Shri Lehroo. It is made clear that in case the plaintiffs are unable to produce their evidence as allowed by this order on the date fixed by the learned trial Court, no further opportunity shall 4 ( 2025:HHC:16796 ) be granted and the learned trial Court shall proceed with the case from the stage it was left. The petition is accordingly disposed of. The plaintiffs are burdened with a costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the defendants on the next date of hearing before the learned trial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 17th June, 2025. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 30th May, 2025. (jai)