Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Gupta vs Vikram Mittal on 22 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 665 of 2024
Decided on : 22.11.2024
Sanjay Gupta.
....Petitioner.
Versus
Vikram Mittal.
...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.
For the respondent : Nemo.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral)
Heard.
2. Petitioner herein is defendant in Civil Suit
No. 224/1 of 2015, titled as Vikram Mittal Vs.
Sanjay Gupta, pending on the files of learned Civil
Judge, Court No. 2, Poanta Sahib, District Sirmour,
H.P.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:12245 )
3. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
'plaintiff') has filed a suit for recovery of
Rs. 5,00,170/- with the averments that the
defendant had been making purchase of
pharmaceutical products from plaintiff and had not
paid the full amount leaving the balance of
Rs.4,85, 602/-, which has been claimed as
principle amount in the suit.
4. Plaintiff has filed the suit as proprietor
of M/s Upkaar Pharmaceuticals at 101 Industrial
Area, Gondpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District
Sirmour, H.P.. The defendant has filed the written
statement and has contested the suit.
5. Learned Trial Court has framed the
following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
recovery of Rs. 5,00,170/- alongwith
interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for?
OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable ? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of
action to file the present suit? OPD
4. Relief."
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:12245 )
6. After conclusion of evidence by both the
parties, plaintiff filed an application under Order 7
Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave
of the Court to place on record documents
evidencing his proprietorship of M/s Upkaar
Pharmaceuticals. The defendant contested the
prayer made in the application, nonetheless vide
impugned order the learned Trial Court allowed the
application and hence, the defendant has
approached this Court by way of this petition.
7. Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, learned counsel
representing the defendant has submitted that
the learned Trial Court could not have allowed the
application of the plaintiff at such a belated stage
when the entire evidence of the parties stood
already concluded. He further submitted that the
plaintiff, by producing fresh documents is trying to
fill-up the lacuna left in the case. He has placed
reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in
Sarvan (since deceased) thr. LRs and Ors. Vs.
H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors.,
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:12245 )
Latest HLJ 2023(HP)(1)97, in support of his
contention.
8. The plaint reveals that the plaintiff has
filed the suit in his individual capacity being
proprietor of M/s Upkaar Pharmaceuticals.
9. In the written statement, the defendant
in para-1 of reply on merits has submitted as
under:-
"That Para No.1 of the plaint, is not admitted to
be correct, hence denied. The plaintiff, is
required, to prove that he is Proprietor of M/s
Upkaar Pharmaceuticals, at 101, Industrial Area,
Gondpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour,
H.P."
10. Thus, the averments with respect to the
plaintiff being proprietor of M/s Upkaar
Pharmaceuticals have been denied in generality.
In addition, there is no specific averment in the
written statement that in case the plaintiff is not the
proprietor of M/s Upkaar Pharmaceuticals then who
is its proprietor or in alternative there is no
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:12245 )
submission that M/s Upkaar Pharmaceuticals is
not a proprietorship concern.
11. In above backdrop of pleadings, there is
no specific issue framed by learned Trial Court as
to the locus of plaintiff in filing the suit.
12. The application of the plaintiff under
Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC, reveals that the
plaintiff got apprehensive about the issue when he
was cross-examined by the defendant and it was
suggested that one Sh. Raman Bansal is the owner
of M/s Upkaar Pharmaceuticals
13. In my considered view, since there was
no specific issue with respect to the locus of the
plaintiff, how far the suggestion made in the cross-
examination by the plaintiff would be relevant, is a
matter of guess only. In any case, the impugned
order is an innocuous order, which will not affect
the merits of the case, keeping in view the
pleadings of the parties and issues framed in suit.
14. In this view of the matter, this Court sees
no reason to interfere with the impugned order by
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:12245 )
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, as the impugned order cannot
be said to be without jurisdiction or absolutely
perverse. It also cannot be ignored that the
impugned order was passed on 09.09.2024 and the
petitioner has approached this Court only on
18.11.2024 after lapse of more than two months.
The suit is already at the fag end. Further, delay in
the matter will not serve in the interest of justice or
either of the parties.
15. As regards, the reliance in Sarvan
(since deceased) thr. LRs and Ors. Vs. H.P. State
Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors., Latest HLJ
2023(HP)(1)97, it will not serve the cause of
defendant, as the said judgment has been passed
in the peculiar facts of that case which are
distinguishable.
16 . In result, I find no merit in the petition
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:12245 )
17. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of,
so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
(Satyen Vaidya)
22nd
November, 2024 Judge
(sushma)
