Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 11.08.2025 vs Shri Chando Ram (Since Deceased) on 11 August, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:27011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.440 of 2024
Decided on: 11.08.2025
Kuldeep Singh & another ... Petitioners
.
Versus
Shri Chando Ram (since deceased)
through LRs. Shri Kulwant Singh & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate.
For the respondent :
Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Harshit Sharma,
Advocate, for respondents No.1 (a), 1
(c) and 1 (d).
r Respondents No. 1(b) (i) to 1 (b) (iii) ex
parte.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated
19.09.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, in
terms whereof, two applications filed by the petitioners, one under
Order 26, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and the other under
Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code stand dismissed.
2. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as
well as other documents appended with the petition.
3. The applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by
the learned Trial Court by assigning the following reasons:-
"In the present case by way of present application
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:27011
applicants intend to prove that the land allotted to them
in partition was not fair and therefore, they intend to
prove this fact by leading evidence, which will amount to
.
questioning the order of partition, which is not
permissible under law. Moreover, perusal of zimni orders
show that the case has been fixed for arguments since
13.03.2018 and every time, Ld counsel for
plaintiffs/applicants has sought adjournment for
arguments. After seeking ample opportunities for
addressing arguments, on 18.03 2019, application under
Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was filed by the applicants and
thereafter, application under Order 7 Rule 14 (2) read
with Section 151 CPC was filed on 22.06 2022. I fail to
understand that if applicants intended to bring the
aforesaid document on record or intended to lead
evidence with respect to these facts whether or not it be
material to prove their cause of action in the present case,
they should have been vigilant and should have taken
the steps within time. Order sheets are clearly reflective of
the fact that unnecessarily adjournments were taken for
arguments for almost four years and now applicants
under the garb of present applications are trying to bring
the evidence, which is not even material to their cause of
action, which they have alleged in the present case.
Needless to say that the case has been pending for more
than a decade and moving of these kind of frivolous
applications is deprecatory. Accordingly, both applications
are dismissed subject to cost of Rs.500/-Both the
applications be entered if not already entered. Both the
applications stands disposed-of Be tagged with the main
case file for record."
4. A perusal of this Para demonstrates that what weighed
2025:HHC:27011
with the learned Court while rejecting the applications was the fact
that the applications were filed at a belated stage when the matter
was being listed for hearing and as per the learned Court below, the
.
filing of the applications was nothing but an abuse of the process of
law and the endeavour was to delay the case. Learned Court below
observed that if the petitioners intended to bring the material on
record as was being intended under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil
Procedure Code, then nothing prevented them from doing the
needful at the stage of leading the evidence and now when the
matter was being fixed for hearing and that too, after almost four
years since the case was being listed for arguments, the applications
could not be allowed and the petitioners could not be permitted to
try and bring additional evidence on record.
5. This Court is of the considered view that the findings
returned by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the applications
call for no interference. It could not be demonstrated by learned
Senior Counsel that the findings returned in Para-8 of order dated
19.09.2022 were either perverse or not borne out from the record. As
it is evident that the applications were filed by the petitioners at a
belated stage when the case was being listed for arguments without
any valid justification as to why these applications were not filed
earlier, same clearly demonstrates that there was no due-diligence
exercised by the petitioners in the filing of the applications and the
endeavour indeed was to keep the matters pending by filing frivolous
2025:HHC:27011
applications.
6. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, as this
Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
August 11, 2025
(Rishi)
