2026:HHC:25692 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No.9 of 2023 & CR No.184 of 2022 Reserved on: 17.06.2026 Decided on: 30.06.2026 Uploaded on: 30.06.2026 1. CR No.9 of 2023 Ramtari and others ...Petitioners Versus Gauri and others ...Respondents 2. CR No.184 of 2022 Ramtari and others ...Petitioners Versus Gauri and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, in both the petitions. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Both these revision petitions are taken up together for final disposal, since they arise out of two orders passed in a Civil Suit instituted by respondent No.1/plaintiff 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25692 against the petitioners/defendants and proforma- respondents/defendants. 2. By way of one order dated 30.09.2022, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) by the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed, thereby permitting her to produce the birth certificate and school leaving certificate on record and by another order passed on 19.07.2022, an application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC by the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.4 in the Civil Suit for filing additional written statement has been rejected. 3. For ready reference, the parties in the present lis are referred as plaintiff and defendants. 4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that she is the owner of land measuring 00-76-52 hectares detailed in the plaint on the plea that the alleged Will dated 09.05.2010 executed in favour of the defendants is fake, forged, fabricated, in-valid document and the same is wrong, illegal, void-ab-initio, ineffective, in-operative, having no adverse effect upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land, as the same was joint Hindu family coparcenary property of the plaintiff and her father, 3 2026:HHC:25692 which cannot be alienated in any manner by the manager of the joint hindu family except for legal necessity and without the consent of other coparcener with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from getting mutation/revenue entries in their names on the basis of the alleged Will, ousting the plaintiff forcefully from joint possession, changing nature and character in any manner until final partition of the suit land or making any kind of alienation of any specific Khasra numbers, getting released the amount lying in the accounts and in the alternate, decree for joint possession and any other relief, which the Court may deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for permission to produce/prove the birth certificate and school leaving certificate, on the plea that due to oversight, the photocopies of the birth certificate and school leaving certificate remain laying in the brief of her counsel and this fact came to the notice of the counsel, when he prepared the list of witnesses to deposit diet money, to summon the witnesses. The documents are very much material and 4 2026:HHC:25692 necessary to solve the real controversy among the parties and will also help the Court in deciding the suit effectively. 6. Defendants filed reply opposing the prayer on the grounds that the documents sought to be produced and proved in the case have no nexus with the controversy and as such the same cannot be allowed to be adduced. The documents are not at all material for deciding the real controversy. Since defendant No.4 had died during the pendency of the Civil Suit, his LRs also opposed the application on the grounds that the entire story has been created in a concocted manner. They contended that the plaintiff as well as her GPA are trying to mislead the Court and there is no pleading in the plaint regarding the second fact, nor any reliance placed on birth certificate and school leaving certificate, to which the plaintiff through her GPA, wants to bring on record. 7. The learned trial Court on the basis of the averments made in the application and replies filed thereto came to the conclusion that as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the plaintiff can produce the documents with the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit and thus, it is within the discretion of the Court to permit the plaintiff to 5 2026:HHC:25692 file such documents, which ought to have been filed along with the plaint. It was held that since the documents sought to be produced are birth certificate and school leaving certificate, the same appears to be relevant for the just decision of the case and furthermore, there is little chance of concoction and fabrication and, therefore, if the application is allowed and permission is granted to produce the documents, no material prejudice will be caused to the defendants, rather it will facilitate the Court to decide the matter finally and effectively. Full liberty should be granted to the parties to lead their evidence, so that they will not say that they have not got full opportunity to prove or to defend their case. The admissibility of the documents shall be tested at the time of final decision of the case and as such the trial Court allowed the application. 8. It is also averred that the legal representatives of defendant No.4 feeling aggrieved by the said order has filed the present petition i.e. CR No.9 of 2023, on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not appreciated that the original documents in question have not been filed at the time of instituting the suit. No reasonable explanation has been given by the plaintiff, which prevented her to file the 6 2026:HHC:25692 documents at the relevant stage. The petitioners had categorically stated that the documents were not even filed before the Assistant Collector First Grade-SDM. The matter is pending for the last 12 years and the defendants have already filed the written statement and the plaintiff cannot take the defendants by surprise and introduce a new case by producing the documents and as such the order passed, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further averred that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and are not based on material on record. 9. I have heard Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Abhinav Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record carefully. 10. It is true that as per the provision of Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, the plaintiff has to produce and enter the documents in the list, when the plaint is presented, but subsequently the same can only be produced with the leave of the Court. In the present case, the plaintiff wants to produce the birth certificate and school leaving certificate, 7 2026:HHC:25692 which were lying in the file of the counsel representing her. It is settled law that the parties should not suffer due to the lapse of the counsel. Further, these documents in no manner can be said to cause any prejudice to the defendants. The defendants have not specifically disputed the fact that the plaintiff had handed over the documents to the counsel, which remained in his brief. The only plea, which has been taken by the defendants is that there is no nexus of the documents to be produced and further deciding the controversy in the Civil Suit. This fact is to be seen at the time of deciding the suit. 11. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned senior counsel drew the attention of the Court to the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench in CMPMO No.109 of 2025, Sh. Mukhtyar Singh versus Gyan Singh and others to contend that the Court had dismissed the petition and upheld the order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. However, if the order is perused, the Court did not disturb the findings recorded by the trial Court whereby it had dismissed the application. In the present case, the learned trial Court has allowed the application and this Court while exercising the revision jurisdiction has very limited power. 8 2026:HHC:25692 This Court can set aside the order if the jurisdiction exercised is not vested in law, or failed to exercise the jurisdiction, so vested or have acted in exercise of the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the present case, the learned trial Court to advance substantial justice has permitted the plaintiff to produce the documents, which are birth and school leaving certificates, which were given to the counsel, who could not produce the same when the plaint was filed. No illegality has been committed by the trial Court, while allowing the application. 12. Learned trial Court, while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff, has given categorical findings that the documents will facilitate the Court to decide the matter finally and effectively and further the admissibility of the documents shall be tested at the time of final decision of the case and thus, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error of law while exercising the jurisdiction vested in it while permitting the plaintiff to produce the documents. 13. Learned counsel for the defendants could not make any submission that how the said documents are going to cause any prejudice to the defendants, if the same 9 2026:HHC:25692 are taken on record. The Courts are meant to advance substantial justice between the parties and since the learned trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction while allowing the application, no infirmity can be found with the said order passed by the learned trial Court and there is no merit in the revision petition i.e. CR No.9 of 2023, and the same is quashed and set aside. 14. Further in CR No. 184 of 2022, the legal representatives of defendant No.4 have assailed the order dated 19.07.2022, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application moved by them under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected, whereby they had prayed for permission to file addition written statement. 15. It has been averred in the application that Sh. Keval Krishan, original defendant No.4 had died and they have been brought on record at his place. They want to file additional written statement as the basic facts relating to the suit were not mentioned in the previous written statement filed by him. These facts are very much necessary to decide the issue in question and further the same will not cause grave injury/irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff. The LRs of defendant No.4 had filed the additional 10 2026:HHC:25692 written statement along with the application. 16. The plaintiff filed reply to the application and averred that the application is not maintainable, since they have not mentioned about their additional defence. The applicants/LRs of defendant No.4 are estopped from filing the application as they are only entitled to defend the suit on the pleas taken by their predecessor. 17. Learned trial Court after considering the averments made in the application and replies filed thereto, rejected the same holding that if a legal representative wants to raise any individual point, which the deceased party could not have raised, he must get himself impleaded in his personal capacity or challenge the decree in a separate suit. The legal representative is not permitted to file an additional written statement and as such the application filed by the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.4 for filing of additional written statement is not maintainable due to the simple reason that being legal representatives, they are entitled to defend the suit on the pleas taken by their predecessor and if they have any independent right, then they can claim the same after impleading themselves in their independent capacity. 11 2026:HHC:25692 18. I have heard the Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Abhinav Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record carefully. 19. It is not in dispute that the legal representatives of defendant No.4 were brought on record and thereafter they had filed an application for taking permission to file additional written statement. It is relevant to mention that as per the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, a party after their implementations, if not allowed to file additional written statement, the very purpose of allowing them to be impleaded as legal representatives would be nothing, but only to array them as party in the suit, especially when suit is at the initial stage. Once the legal representatives are impleaded as party respondents, they can take any defence, but it cannot withdraw the earlier plea and can only make additional pleas. In the present case, when the application seeking permission to file additional written statement was filed, the plaintiff had yet to lead evidence and thus, the prayer made ought to have been allowed. 12 2026:HHC:25692 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumtibai and others vs. Paras Finance Co. and others, (2007) 10 SCC 82, has held that the Civil Procedure Code, is really the rules of natural justice, which are set out in great and elaborate detail and its purpose is to enable both the parties to get a hearing. Once a party is impleaded in the suit and not allowed to file additional statement, it would be of no use to merely allow the legal representatives to be impleaded. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “8. Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. The appellants in the present case have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. In our opinion, Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC cannot be construed in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the respondent. 9 to14 xxxxxx 15. Also, merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not be allowed to file an additional written statement. In fact, no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. In our opinion, this will clearly violate natural justice.” 21. Since the legal representatives of defendant No.4 have been brought on record and thereafter they filed an 13 2026:HHC:25692 application seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement, the trial Court ought to have allowed the same, especially when the suit is at the initial stage of recording the evidence. The plaintiff will get chance to rebut the averments by filing the replication and no prejudice will be caused to her in case the legal representatives are permitted to take the additional pleas by filing the additional written statement. 22. The plaintiff has laid challenge to the alleged Will and it is settled law that it is the propounder of the Will, who has to prove the same. The trial Court has erred while dismissing the application filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.4 and thus the impugned order passed by it is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.4, under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, is allowed and the additional written statement filed by them is ordered to be taken on record. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff shall have right to file replication to the same, thereby controverting the pleas raised by the legal representatives in the additional written statement. 23. Consequently, the revision petition i.e. CR 14 2026:HHC:25692 No.184 of 2022, is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.07.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.III, Una, HP, in Civil Suit Registration No. 1751 of 2013, titled, Gauri vs. Hari Dev Duvedi and others, is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.4 for filing additional written statement is allowed. Revision Petition i.e. CR No.9 of 2023, being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. The parties to directed to appeal before learned Trial Court on 27.07.2026. 30 th June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge