2026:HHC:1760 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 402 of 2022 Decided on : 07.01.2026 Sh. Ishwar Dass Garg …Petitioner Versus Ms. Vrinda alias Banka Devi and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Respondent No.1 is proceeded against exparte. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Respondent No.1 stands served dasti. As despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, accordingly, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against exparte. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:1760 order dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by respondents No.2 & 3 herein, under Sections 137 & 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, stands allowed and the right of the present petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff and the witnesses stands denied. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in light of the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner in the plaint and the response that has been filed thereto in the written statement, the cross- examination of the plaintiff and the witnesses by the petitioner was and is necessary to safeguard his interest. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. defendants No. 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court, submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner has admitted the claim of the plaintiff, he has no right to cross-examine the plaintiff and the witnesses. 4. A suggestion was put to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents as to why the petitioner should not be deleted from the array of defendants 3 2026:HHC:1760 before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that he has no objection thereto and otherwise also, he submitted that as the contesting respondents herein are the defendants before the learned Trial Court, the dominus litus, otherwise also, is of the plaintiff. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 6. The suit pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court is for specific performance of agreement dated 17.04.2006, which as per the plaintiff, was executed by the late mother of defendants No. 1 and 2 through her power of attorney i.e. the present petitioner. The allegation in the plaint against the present petitioner is that after the execution of the agreement, requests were made to the present petitioner and also the late mother of the contesting defendants during her lifetime to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but both the petitioner as well as Smt. Prakash Wati kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Except this, there is no allegation against the present petitioner and no relief 4 2026:HHC:1760 otherwise has been prayed against him. The allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner in the plaint, stand denied by him in the written statement. 7. Though this Court understands and appreciates that dominus litus is that of the plaintiff and the plaintiff in her wisdom has chosen to implead the present petitioner as a party defendant in the suit, but one finds that the plaintiff has taken a conscious decision not to appear before this Court despite being served. The petitioner, on other hand, is a senior citizen, who is more than 75 years of age. 8. In this backdrop, though this Court is not disturbing the order passed by the learned Trial Court as in light of the final order that this Court intends to pass today, this order shall be rendered otios, these proceedings are disposed of with the direction that the name of the present petitioner i.e. defendant No.3 in the Civil Suit, is ordered to be deleted from the array of defendants before the learned Trial Court and the averments made in the plaint against defendant No.3 shall be construed to have been omitted from the plaint. 9. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending 5 2026:HHC:1760 miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 07, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)