1 2026:HHC:38093 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 163 of 2026 Decided on: 7.9.2026 Pushpa Devi & ors. … Petitioners Versus Roshan Lal (deceased) through LR …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 28.3.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in an application, under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the CPC in Civil Suit No. 372 of 2017, titled as, ‘Smt. Pushpa Devi & others versus Roshan Lal (deceased) through LRs.’. 2 2026:HHC:38093 2. By way of order dated 28.3.2026, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, filed under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3), as well as, application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to lead additional evidence to prove the copy of field inquiry report of settlement officials, and to prove the copy of grounds of appeal, as well as, the report of Settlement Field Revenue officials. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiff Roshan Lal has filed the suit for possession by removing the super-structure of any kind over the land shown with letters ‘ABCD’ in red colour in the site plan, being part of khasra No. 125, Khataui No. 653, Khewat No. 190, as per Misal Hakiyat, for the year 1987-88, situated in village Mehatpur, Tehsil & District Una, H.P (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 3 2026:HHC:38093 4.1 According to the plaintiff, he is the owner in possession of the suit land, however, he is running business at Chandigarh and resides there, since 1960. He used to visit the suit site very rare, due to his business activities. The land of the defendants is stated to be situated, adjoining to the suit land, and by taking the benefit of the business of the plaintiff, the defendants have encroached upon the area, adjoining to the land ‘ABCD’, shown in the red colour, in the site plan, and raised the construction, recently. As such, the plaintiff has prayed that the suit may kindly be decreed. 5. The said suit was contested by the defendants, by filing written statement, by taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; the plaintiff has no legally enforceable cause of action; the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own acts and conduct; and plaintiff has not approached the Court, with clean hands. 6. On merits, the suit has been contested, on the ground, that the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit 4 2026:HHC:38093 land is disputed. It has also been denied that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the defendants are owner in possession of the same. 7. During the pendency of the lis, the defendants have filed the application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the CPC for permission to produce and prove the certified copy of the Field Inquiry report of settlement officials, in evidence. 8. As per the averments made in the application, the defendants have filed the application, before the Settlement Collector, Kangra, for rectification of the revenue record. The application was, thereafter, forwarded to the field staff for spot inquiry, pursuant to which, a detailed report was prepared after verification on the spot, recommending correction of the revenue entries. However, the said application was dismissed, on technical grounds. 9. Against the said order, the defendants have preferred an appeal, bearing No. 333 of 2022, titled as, ‘Vinod Kumar versus Amit Prabhakar’, which is stated to be pending before the learned Divisional 5 2026:HHC:38093 Commissioner, Kangra Division, H.P. The defendants now intend to produce the said document, in evidence. 10. In addition to this, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Section 151 CPC, permitting them to lead additional evidence. 11. Both the aforesaid applications were contested by the plaintiff, by taking the plea that the settlement operations were completed, in the year 1987-88, whereas, the suit has been filed, in the year 1995, on the basis of settled revenue record. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court has dismissed both the applications. 13. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the present petition has been filed, before this Court. 14. The applications were filed before the learned trial Court, under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC are reproduced, as under: “Order VIII R.1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him- 6 2026:HHC:38093 (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produce shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 15. Admittedly, the defendants want to produce the copy of report in case No. 97/20/SO. The case is listed for DWs, before the learned trial Court. The reason for dismissal of the application has been given by the learned trial Court that the applications have been moved, at the belated stage, whereas, no such stage has been prescribed by the legislature, in its wisdom, enacting Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC. The only requirement is permission of the Court. Meaning thereby, the document can only be taken on record, with the permission of the Court. 16. The procedural law is meant for advancement of justice. The parties should be given opportunity to plead and prove their cases, so that the matter could be decided on merit. 17. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the plaintiff could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this 7 2026:HHC:38093 Court as to what object the plaintiff is going to achieve, in not producing the documents on record, well within time. The past conduct of the parties should not come in the way of advancement of justice. Every litigant ought to be given the opportunity of contesting the issue, involved on merit, by producing the document, and the said right cannot be scuttled on mere technicalities, unless the same are pre-dominant that overshadow the merits of the case. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff could not point out as to how the defendants have no right to produce the documents, upon which, they are basing their case. 19. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction, vested in it, by dismissing the applications, moved by the defendants. Consequently, the order, under challenge, is set aside, as relevance of the documents, shall be decided, at the time of hearing of the case. 8 2026:HHC:38093 20. With these observations, the present petition is allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the plaintiff. Consequently, order dated 28.3.2026, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the defendants are permitted to produce/prove, the aforesaid documents, sought to be produced/proved by way of applications under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC, and Section 151 CPC, on record. 21. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22.9.2026, at 10:00 a.m. 22. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. (Virender Singh) 7.9.2026 Judge Kalpana