2026:HHC:25423 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 612/2025 Decided on: 25.06.2026 Sanjay Singh @ Sanjeev Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Pardeep Kumar Guleria & ors. …Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok K. Thakur, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order dated 19.07.2024, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an application filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1, Section 148 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for allowing to file written statement was rejected. 2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are that plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2, their family members not to raise any construction in 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 place of old house by occupying more land than falling to their share and not to dispossess the plaintiffs from new house, as comprised in Khata No. 140 min, Khatauni No. 227 min, Khasra No. 650, measuring 00-03-56 hectares, situated at Mohal Upperla Bhaniar, Mauja Sihun, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. The suit came to be filed on 27.4.2022. 3 The defendants/petitioners were served on 7.5.2022 and they put in appearance on 9.5.2022. The defendants did not file written statement for a considerable time and on 19.9.2023, filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1, Section 148 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file written statement before the Court. It was averred in the application that permission may be granted to them to file written statement in the interest of justice. 4 The said application came to be resisted by the plaintiffs/respondents and the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 19.7.2024 dismissed the aforesaid application. 5 Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants have approached this Court by filing instant petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 Mr. Aman Sood, learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has contended that impugned order is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He has 3 submitted that the learned court below has wrongly dismissed the application and there were reasonable grounds for allowing the said application by permitting the defendants to file their written statement. He has further submitted that after accepting present petition, the application filed by the defendant/petitioner ought to have been allowed. 7 Notice of the present petition was issued on 2.3.2026 and pursuant thereto, Mr. Ashok K. Thakur, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. He has fairly conceded that one last and final opportunity can be granted to the defendants to file written statement, but that shall be subject to payment of costs. 8 Without touching the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Learned trial court has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration entire material placed on record, however in the interest of justice, as a matter of indulgence, the written statement, as submitted by the defendants before the learned trial court, is permitted to be taken on record and the learned trial court is directed to proceed with the matter. This indulgence is being shown to the petitioner on the payment of costs of Rs.6000/- to be apportioned and paid equally to the 4 respondents within a period of four weeks. It is made clear that in case the aforesaid cost is not paid by the petitioner, in that even benefit of this order will not applicable to him. 9 The instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application, if any. (Romesh Verma) 25th June, 2026 Judge (pankaj)