( 2026:HHC:30536 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.13 of 2025 Decided on:- 21.07.2026 Satya Devi …Petitioner Versus Jagir Singh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner-Satya Devi has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.09.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in Civil Suit No.306/09-668/2013. 2. By way of order dated 16.09.2024, the learned trial Court has decided the application, filed by respondents No.1 & 4, under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) of CPC, read with Section 151 of CPC. 3. By way of said application, a prayer has been made to permit them to produce the documents, i.e., copy 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:30536 2 of ‘Aks Shajra Kishtwar Bandobast’ for the year 1994- 1996, certified copy of jamabandi for the year 2018-19, in respect of Khasra Nos.2128 and 2405 and certified copies of jamabandi for the year 2018-19, in respect of other Khasra Nos.2417, 2274, 2275, 1878, 1880 and 2403. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court. 5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition before this Court, as borne out from the record, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under:- 5.1. Plaintiff-Satya Devi has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering, in any manner, from raising any sort of construction, taking forcible possession, cutting and removing the Safeda and Drake trees, over the land, measuring 01-16-89 hectares, bearing Khewat No.200 min, Khatoni No.298, Khasra Nos.2128, 2131, 2134, 2138, 2140, 2141, 2179, 2254 and 2257 and old Khasra Nos.747, 742 and 737, situated in village Kharoh, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), and also sought the relief of possession of ( 2026:HHC:30536 3 encroached land of southern side of Khasra No.2128, as shown, red in colour, in the site plan, denoted by A, B, C, D. 5.2. The said suit has been contested, by the defendants. Thereafter, the issues were framed and when, the matter was listed for defendants’ evidence on 20.05.2023, the application under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) of CPC, read with Section 151 has been moved. The said application has been contested, by the plaintiff, by taking preliminary objections that the application is not maintainable and factual position, as mentioned, in the application has also been controverted. 5.3. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, has allowed the said application, vide order dated 16.09.2024, which has been assailed by the plaintiff, before this Court, by way of the present petition. 5.4. The order has been assailed on the ground, that the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, the learned trial Court has allowed the application of defendants No.1 and 4, without appreciating the fact that the case, at the relevant time, was fixed for DWs and the ( 2026:HHC:30536 4 defendants are in habit of delaying the proceedings of the case, by moving number of applications. 5.5. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, the learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the documents, which are sought to be brought on record, i.e. copy of Aks Shajra Kishtwar Bandobast for the year 1994- 1996 and certified copy of jamabandi for the year 2018-19, have no relevance and the same have been sought to be produced, at the belated stage, just to buy more time. 5.6. The said application is stated to have been filed, by defendants No.1 & 4, after a considerable delay of about 15 years, from the inception of the lis. 5.7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner- plaintiff, has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed, by setting aside the order, passed by the learned trial Court. 5.8. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the respondents-defendants, has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and prayed that once, the jurisdiction has rightly been exercised, by the learned trial Court, then, this Court cannot interfere in the ( 2026:HHC:30536 5 well reasoned order, passed by the learned trial Court, that too, in the limited jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard. 7. Admittedly, the application under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) of CPC has been filed at the stage, when, the lis was pending for defendants’ evidence. The provisions of Order 8, Rule 1A(3) of CPC, are, reproduced, as under:- “A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 8. A bare perusal of the above provisions demonstrates that when, the document, which ought to be produced, in the Court, by the defendant, is not, produced, the same shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received into evidence. Meaning thereby, no absolute bar has been created, by the legislature, in allowing the application, under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) of CPC. 9. The reason for not moving the application has duly been explained, in the application, by pleading the fact that during the course of evidence led by the plaintiff, ( 2026:HHC:30536 6 it has been found that the demarcation carried out, by the Field Kanungo, was absolutely contrary to the factual position. In this regard, defendants No.1 to 4 have also relied upon the cross examination of the said witness, in which, he has stated that three permanent points, were taken by him from nearby Abadi only, without disclosing, the names of the owner of the Abadi. 10. Moreover, considering the true import of procedural law, according to which, the procedural law is meant for advancement of justice, not to hamper the same, the order passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court, in the reply, as well as, the grounds of petition, nothing has been mentioned, about the prejudice, which the plaintiff is going to suffer, in case, the documents, as sought, by the defendants, are permitted to be produced on record. Every party has right to get fair opportunity to prove its case, by leading the evidence, as per the Rules. 11. The proceedings, before the Court should not be equated with the game of throwing the dice. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has elaborately discussed the stand, as taken, by both the parties and now, the ( 2026:HHC:30536 7 plaintiff is before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606” has elaborately discussed the scope of interference. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.” 13. Even otherwise, in a recent decision in “Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., 2026 INSC 434”, the scope of interference has again been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, ( 2026:HHC:30536 8 reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.” 14. In view of the above decision, if the facts and circumstances of the present case, are seen, then, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction vested, in the learned trial Court has wrongly been exercised, as reasonable opportunity to prove the case should not be declined to the party, merely, on the technical ground, that he had not produced the same, at the earliest, available opportunity. 15. Hence, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) July 21, 2026 Judge (subhash sharma)