1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 1 of 2026 Decided on: 14.9.2026 Bimla Devi … Petitioner Versus Nikka Ram & anr. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sant Ram Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Bimla Devi has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No. 264/6 of 2025, filed in Civil Suit No. 94/1 of 2015, titled as, ‘Paras Ram vs. Bimla Devi’. 2 2. By way of order dated 25.11.2025, the learned trial Court, has dismissed the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, resulting in dismissal of application, under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, which was moved by the present petitioner. 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. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from raising construction, changing the nature, cutting the trees, alienating the specific part of the land, measuring 22 bighas, 15 biswas, comprised in Khewat No. 4, Khatauni No. 4 Khasra No. 200/186/66, situated at village Bhatoli, Pargana Bahadurpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), as entered in the Jamabandi, for the year 2008-09. 3 4.1 The suit has been filed on the ground that they are joint owners in possession of the suit land, and according to them, husband of defendant Bimla Devi was having only 6th share in the same. After death of Bhagat Ram, husband of defendant, the present defendant has succeeded his estate. The plaintiffs have also filed application for partition, before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Sadar, which is stated to be pending adjudication. 4.2 On the basis of above facts, the plaintiffs have sought the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. 5. As per the record, notice of the suit was served upon the defendant. She had put appearance, through her counsel, and sought time to file written statement. However, written statement could not be filed, and she was proceeded exparte, on 8.11.2016. 6. Thereafter, she had moved application, under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, which was taken up by the learned trial Court, on 17.10.2017. 7. Thereafter, the said application was contested by the plaintiffs and issues were framed by learned trial 4 Court, on 24.9.2021. On 17.5.2022, in view of no objection made by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was allowed and the defendant was permitted to join the proceedings, by recalling the ex-parte order dated 8.11.2016. 8. Thereafter, issues in the case, were framed, on 13.9.2022 and the matter was listed for PWs. However, on 19.7.2023, on account of failure of defendant to put appearance, she was proceeded against ex-parte. 9. On 25.6.2025, defendant has filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, alongwith application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, for setting aside the aforesaid exparte order. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs, and ultimately, the application was dismissed, on 25.11.2025. 10. The said order has been assailed before this Court by the defendant, on the ground that the defendant, being an old lady, was not aware of the intricacies of law. 11. Considering the facts that the case is still at the stage of PWs, and only on account of the default, 5 committed by the defendant, in not appearing before the learned trial Court, she has not lost the right to get the lis decided, on the basis of stand taken by her, in the written statement. She has every right to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs, and default on her part, is too short to decline the relief, as prayed, in the present petition. Even otherwise, considering the low legal literacy of the Indian Masses, the said default cannot be said to be un-natural. 12. Considering the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the view that opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is required to be afforded to the defendant, so that the matter could be decided on merit, and not on the basis of technicalities, i.e. the defendant was proceeded against exparte. 14. With these observations, the present petition is allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs. Consequently, order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. 15. At this stage, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that application under Order 26 6 Rule 9 CPC, is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. Considering the fact that the lis is pending since the year 2015, the learned trial Court is requested to decide the application, under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, within one month, from the date of appearance of the parties, before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the matter be decided, as expeditiously as possible, not later than 31.3.2027. 16. 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. 17. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 18. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 14.9.2026 Judge Kalpana