1 2026:HHC:14266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO (OS) No. 23 of 2025 Date of decision: 29.04.2026 ________________________________________________________ M/s B.K. Raman & others ...Appellants Versus Narender Kumar & another …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal by defendant No. 1 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in Civil Suit No. 08 of 2024, titled as Narinder Kumar & another Vs. M/s B.K. Raman & Co. & others, whereby an application filed by the present 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on account of non-removal of objections for more than 2½ months. 2. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the party cannot be permitted to prolong the proceedings indefinitely without any justifiable reason and saw no reason to grant another opportunity to remove the objections which had been provided. Therefore, the application was rejected and direction was issued to the defendants to file the written statement within the statutory period prescribed under the Rules. 3. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge had various other options as such of imposing costs upon the applicant/defendant No. 2 as per the provisions of Section 35-B of the Code of the Civil Procedure before passing the drastic order rather of rejecting the application which was not even on record. 4. Resort could have also been made to strike off the defence, if so required, thereafter. Therefore, 3 by the impugned order the right as such to get an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure adjudicated, has been cut short which is the procedural right provided under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be noticed that the application has now been re-filed and is on the record of the Civil Suit. It is also to be kept in mind that the plaintiff-respondent had also a stay operating in his favour and, therefore, was not prejudiced in any manner also, if the proceedings were delayed. 5. Resultatly, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the impugned order is set aside by imposing a costs of Rs.20,000/- upon the appellants for delaying the proceedings, which would be paid to the plaintiffs, by way of a demand draft, within a period of four weeks. 6. Learned Counsel for the parties shall put in appearance before the learned Single Judge on 01.06.2026. 4 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. April 29, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.