1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.138 of 2026 Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 Bhuma Devi & others ...Petitioners Versus Himati Devi ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi ,District Mandi, dated 12.01.2026, whereby the application filed by the defendants/petitioners under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 4 C.P.C for exhibiting/endorsing Will already tendered in evidence has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Himati Devi filed a suit for declaration and injunction and also for confirmation of joint possession against the present petitioner. The respondent led her evidence and thereafter the case was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 fixed for the evidence of the petitioners. However, despite availing various opportunities, the learned trial Court was constrained to close the evidence of the present petitioners vide order dated 19.05.2025. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the closure of the evidence on 19.05.2025, the petitioners preferred CMPMO before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 12.09.2025 granted one opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence. 4. The present petitioners filed an application under Order 13 Rule 4 C.P.C with a prayer that due to some inadvertence, the defendants/present petitioners could not exhibit the Will already tendered in the case file. 5. The said application was contested by the opposite side. The averments as made in the application were refuted. It has been stated in the reply that this Court vide its order dated 12.09.2025 granted one opportunity to lead evidence on self- responsibility, therefore, instead of pleading evidence, the present application has been filed just to prolong the matter. 6. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 12.01.202,6 dismissed the application as filed by the present petitioners. 3 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the present petitioner has approached this Court against the impugned order. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file carefully. 9. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit in the Court of learned Sr.Civil Judge, Mandi for declaration and injunction and also for confirmation of the joint possession. After the closure of the evidence by the plaintiff, the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants, however, when the evidence was not led, the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants/petitioners on 19.05.2025. 10. The petitioners approached this Court by filing CMPMO and one opportunity was granted to the present petitioners to lead their evidence on self-responsibility. 11. Instead of leading the evidence, the defendants filed an application under Order 13 Rule 4 C.PC for exhibiting/endorsing Will already tendered in evidence. The learned trial Court vide its order has rightly come to the conclusion that allowing the application will amount to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners/defendants and that shall be in violation to the order, which has been passed by this 4 Court. The defendants/petitioners instead of leading evidence filed the application under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 4 C.P.C without any substance and merit. The application has been filed in the guise of seeking one more opportunity to lead the evidence. The Learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and this Court is of the opinion that there is no error or infirmity in the order. 12. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 06.04.2026 (veena)