2026:HHC:26673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.54 of 2026 Reserved on:01.07.2026 Decided on: 06.07.2026 Amar Nath Attri ….Petitioner Versus Mohan Dutt & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6 and 8. Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondent No.9. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.10. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.11 and 12. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the order, as passed by learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, dated 17.01.2026, whereby the application, under Order 7 Rule 14 read 2 2026:HHC:26673 with Section 151 of CPC, preferred by the present petitioners, came to be dismissed. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the present petitioners instituted a petition under Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to determine the entitlement of the petitioners for entire compensation with respect to land comprised in Khasra Nos.1 and 2, situated at Mauza Siharari Masalmana, Post Office Dharampur, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan on 15.12.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that the suit property came to be acquired by respondent No.11, the competent authority, and vide its award No.13/1 dated 16.09.2017, the award was passed in respect of land situated in village Siharari Masalmana, hadbast No.769, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. There were structures on the land in question, which are detailed from Sr. No.6 to 21 in Annexure-1 of the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.11 passed the award in an illegal manner. Respondent No.11 has held that respondents No.1 to 8 are the persons entitled for the compensation qua the structures shown in their possession and such finding is unilateral, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and against the principles of natural justice and fair play. The petitioners are the 3 2026:HHC:26673 owners of the property and have not been granted just and proper opportunity to prove their claim. 3. It is further the case of the petitioners that late Shri Tulsi Dutt, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 8, was inducted as a tenant in the houses/structures situated on the land in question. Respondents No.1 to 8 are successors in interest of late Shri Tulsi Dutt, as such, they have no right, title or interest to claim compensation of the property in question in any manner. Therefore, it was prayed that the petitioners are entitled to receive the entire compensation with regard to the property in question. 4. The said petition was contested by the private respondents, who raised various objections regarding its maintainability, locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred by the private respondents that late Shri Tirath Ram, predecessor-in- interest of respondents No.1 to 8, had taken the forest land on lease long back in the year 1920-21 and had constructed entire buildings and shops thereon The construction of these buildings and shops was done by late Shri Tirath Ram from his own funds, and he was the absolute owner of the entire property i.e. buildings and shops thereon. After the death of late Shri Tirath Ram, he was succeeded by his three sons ie. Tulsi Dutt, Narayan Dutt and Shri Chintamani, who all have now expired and are succeeded by 4 2026:HHC:26673 respondents No.1 to 8. The possession of the respondents was found by respondent No.11 after due inquiry and evidence available on record. Late Shri Tulsi Dutt had been running a shop on a part of the building and an electric connection was also released in his favour by the Department of Electricity in the year 1981. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had been renting out portion of building qua their share to different tenants since 1965 onwards. It was specifically denied that late Shri Shoba Ram constructed houses in question on the land taken on lease during his lifetime in any manner. It was averred that the competent authority i.e. respondent No.11 has rightly adjudicated the objections/claim and passed the award in accordance with law. 5. Learned District Judge framed the issues in the matter and directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. The petitioners led their evidence and concluded the same. As per order dated 09.09.2025, respondents No.1 to 8 closed their evidence and thereafter, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence on behalf of the petitioners on 07.11.2025. 6. On 07.11.2025, instead of leading rebuttal evidence, the petitioners filed two separate applications, one under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC for 5 2026:HHC:26673 production of documents and another under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC for enlargement of time for filing list of witnesses. 7. In the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC, it was stated that on 02.12.2025, while arranging articles in the house, Shri Naresh Attri, son of Amar Nath Attri, came across a bundle of papers. On the top of these papers, certified copy of decree sheet passed in Appeal No.521 of 1994, titled Tirth Ram vs. Sobha Ram, under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC by learned District Judge, Patiala, copy of review petition No.18 of 14.06.1952, tilted Sobha Ram vs. Tirth Ram by the Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Patiala and East Punjab State Union at Patiala, copy of order passed in the said review petition on 07.07.1952 came to the knowledge of the petitioners. Prior to 02.12.2025, the petitioners did not have the knowledge of the aforementioned certified copies, as such, their earlier non-production was neither intentional nor willful. Therefore, it was prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to produce and prove the said documents in the interest of justice. 8. The said application came to be contested by respondents No.1 to 8 by filing reply, wherein preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action etc. were taken. It was stated that earlier also an application under Order 7 6 2026:HHC:26673 Rule 14 of CPC was filed to produce certain documents, which was allowed by the Court and the petitioners were given opportunity to file and lead evidence qua those documents. This is the third successive, similar application having been filed by the petitioners on similar grounds. Earlier application filed by the petitioners in the month of November 2025, is still pending and, as such, this is a gross abuse of process of law and the application deserves dismissal with heavy and special costs. In the reply, it has been stated that the petitioners were granted more than 15 opportunities to lead their evidence, and there is no chance for rebuttal evidence as there is no such issue in the pleadings of the parties. Therefore, it was prayed that the application being abuse of process of law deserves to be rejected. 9. Learned District Judge, Solan, vide its impugned order dated 17.01.2026, dismissed the application by imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- on the petitioners. 10. It is contended by Mr.Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned order as passed by learned District Judge, Solan, is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC in the interest of justice and in order to impart 7 2026:HHC:26673 substantial justice. He would submit that after accepting the present petition, the application, as preferred before the learned Court below, under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC, deserves to be allowed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, has defended the impugned order. He has submitted that this Court should not interfere with a well reasoned order passed by learned Court below. He would submit that, while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not disturb the findings as returned by learned Court below after the appreciation of material placed on record. 12. The petitioners have set up the case before the learned District Judge, Solan, that award No.13/1, dated 16.09.2017, is illegal on the ground that respondents No.1 to 8 have been held entitled for the compensation qua the structures shown in their possession and that such finding is unilateral, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and against the principles of natural justice. The case, as projected by the petitioners, before the learned Court below is that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 8, late Shri Tulsi Dutt, was inducted as a tenant in the houses/structures situated on the land in question. The respondents have got no right, title or interest to claim 8 2026:HHC:26673 compensation of the property in question in any manner. It is the case of the petitioners that only they are entitled to the entire compensation. 13. The said stand taken by the petitioners has been specifically refuted by the respondents in their reply. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners have got no right, title or interest over the suit property and it is the respondents, who are entitled for the compensation on the basis of title. It has come on record that the petitioners availed about 15 opportunities to complete their evidence in order to prove their case. The respondents have specifically stated in their reply that the application which has been filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC is a gross abuse of process of law. 14. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the respondents that earlier also an application under Order 7 Rule 14 was filed to produce certain documents, which was allowed by the Court and the petitioners were given opportunity to file and lead the evidence qua those documents. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply as filed by the respondents, whereby it has been stated that this is the third successive, similar application to have been filed by the petitioners on the same and similar grounds. It is further the case of the respondents that earlier also application filed by the petitioners in 9 2026:HHC:26673 the month of November 2025 is still pending. Therefore, it has been stated that repeated applications are being filed by the petitioners so that they may deprive the respondents to get the amount of compensation as per law. 15. The case file reveals that apart from the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, the petitioners also filed one application under Section 148 of CPC for enlargement of time for filing list of witnesses. 16. A perusal of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, shows that a case has been tried to be projected that the petitioners came to know about certain documents only on 02.12.2025. As per the averments as made in the application, the petitioners intend to place on record certified copy of decree sheet, passed in Appeal No.521 of 1994, titled Tirth Ram vs. Sobha Ram, under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC by learned District Judge, Patiala, copy of review petition No.18 of 14.06.1952, titled as Sobha Ram vs. Tirth Ram by the Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Patiala and East Punjab State Union at Patiala, copy of order passed in the review petition on 07.07.1952. A perusal of the said documents shows that all of them were in existence prior to the institution of the present petition. Neither any explanation has come forward, nor any reason has been assigned as to why the said documents were not filed by the petitioners earlier in time. 10 2026:HHC:26673 17. As observed earlier, this is the third application filed by the petitioners under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is certainly an abuse of process of law. The case file and the impugned order as passed by learned District Judge, Solan, show that repeated applications are being filed on the one pretext or the other by the petitioners. The petitioners had filed following applications: (i) Three applications under Order VII Rule 14 CPC; (ii) one under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; (iii) two under Section 148 and Section 151 CPC; (iv) one under Oder XVII Rule 1 CPC; and (v) one under Section 151 of CPC. 18. Apart from that, it is a matter of the record that while leading evidence, 15 opportunities were availed by the petitioners to conclude their evidence. The thrust of the petitioners is to drag the litigation on the one pretext or the other by filing successive applications again and again. The petitioners cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna by filing the application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC for placing on record the documents. No reason has been assigned in the application that what prevented the petitioner to file those documents earlier in time. 11 2026:HHC:26673 19. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC read as follow: “[14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.—(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. [(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.] (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]” 20. This Court while dealing with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC in CMPMO No.535 of 2024 has held as follows: “11. Before coming to the factual matrix of the case, the legal proposition under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC as laid down vide various decisions as rendered by co-ordinate benches of this Court is as follows: 12 2026:HHC:26673 “1. In CMPMO No. 259 of 2017, decided on 09.07.2019, titled Rakesh Kumar Kaundal vs. Smt. Sarswati Devi & others, held as under: “9. It is not in dispute that the application was filed at the stage when the matter was taken up for arguments. It is also not in dispute that earlier on two occasions, the file of the said Criminal case was requisitioned by the learned Trial Court, however, no endeavour was made by the petitioner to place on record the copy of report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, though the said copy was on record of the said file. In these circumstances, in my considered view, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code because said provision cannot be permitted to be invoked by the petitioner to fill up the lacunae in his case. Though, the statement of Sub Inspector Darshan Singh was recorded in February, 2017, yet it is not only the statement of SI Darshan Singh which the petitioner intends to place on record by way of the application in issue. In the guise of placing on record the statement of SI Darshan Singh, an endeavour is being made to place on record the report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not put forth any cogent explanation as to why report of Finger Print Bureau could not be placed on record earlier despite the fact that record of the case in which report was there stood requisitioned on the request of the 13 2026:HHC:26673 petitioner himself before the learned Trial Court on two occasions. In these circumstances, this Court finds no perversity in order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the learned trial Court, because it is evident from the record that due diligence was not exercised by the petitioner in the present case and in the garb of application filed later on, the petitioner could not be permitted to fill up the lacunae left in his case. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No orders as to costs.” 2. In CMPMO No.853 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019, Rajesh Kumar and another vs. State Bank of India, it was held as under:- “5. In my considered view, there is no infirmity with the order which has been passed by the learned trial Court. It is not the case of the present petitioners that the documents which were intended to be placed on record vide application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure came into existence only after the judgment was reserved in the civil suit. This demonstrates that the petitioners did not act diligently before the learned trial Court and in fact were trying to fill up the lacunae. 6. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted to be abused by a litigant to be fill 14 2026:HHC:26673 up lacunae as that is not intent of the said statutory provision. 7. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned trial Court that though procedural law is the hand maiden of justice, however, the procedure cannot be permitted to be manipulated by a party to the prejudice of other.” 3. In CMPMO No. 568 of 2023 dated 17.10.2023, titled as Madan Lal vs. Nanak Chand & others, it was held as under:- “7. The provision of under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the lacunae. Besides this in the course of exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to sit over as an Appellate Court upon the findings returned by the learned Court below, whose order is under challenge and if the view taken by the said Court is plausible on the basis of the facts before it, then this Court need not interfere.” 4. In CM(M) No.231/2009 in CM No. 3959/09 dated 08.04.2009, titled Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others vs. M/s Haldiram Bhujiawala & another, it was held as under:- “21. In any event, both under the old Order 7 Rule 18 sub-rule (1) and new Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule (3) CPC a new document can certainly be produced on behalf of plaintiff at the final hearing of suit, but the same has to be done with leave of the Court. It is not that 15 2026:HHC:26673 the plaintiff has a legal vested right to file a document at a belated stage i.e. at the final hearing of the suit. The said provision gives a discretionary power to the Court, which needless to say has to be exercised in a reasonable and legal manner. In fact, this power has to be exercised sparingly and for some overpowering reason and not as a matter of routine. If petitioners‟ interpretation of Sub Rule 3 is accepted, it would make it impossible for the trial court to conclude the hearing of any suit. 22. Moreover, in the present case on perusal of applications filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, I am of the view that discretionary power with the trial Court to file additional documentary evidence has been rightly refused. I may mention that in the said applications filed by petitioners- plaintiffs, the only reason given for filing of these documents at a belated stage was, "on account of human error and inadvertence and oversight that the said documents escaped the notice of the Advocate." Consequently, it is not open to the petitioners-plaintiffs to now contend in the present proceedings that the documents could not be filed initially as they were not in their power and possession. In fact, from perusal of documents sought to be filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, it is apparent that majority of these documents were all throughout in power and possession of petitioners-plaintiffs. 16 2026:HHC:26673 24. Further, in my view, the impugned order neither suffers from any material irregularity nor the same is in excess of jurisdiction and, consequently, it calls for no interference in Article 227 jurisdiction.” 12. The legal principles as laid down by this Court clearly stipulate that the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC cannot be permitted to be invoked by a litigant or an accused to fill up the lacunae in the case as that is not intent of the said provisions. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the lacuna.” 21. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of relief by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate from the record that how the said documents are relevant for the adjudication of the petition as filed by them. Therefore, there is no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 22. The conduct of the petitioners shows that they do not want the final decision in the petition. Therefore, successive applications are being filed on the one pretext or the other. 23. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed with costs quantified at 17 2026:HHC:26673 Rs.10,000/-. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observations made here-in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. Records, if any, be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge 6th July, 2026 (vt)