Bansi Lal vs Leela Devi & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5859 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bansi Lal vs Leela Devi & Ors on 21 May, 2025

( 2025:HHC:15003 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 239 of 2025.

Decided on : 21st May, 2025.

Bansi Lal                                                               ...Petitioner.
                  Versus
Leela Devi & Ors.                 ....Respondents.

Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

For the respondent:       Nemo.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

                    Heard.

2. The petitioner herein is seeking to challenge the

order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge,

Court No.2, Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 446 of 2022 by invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

3. Learned trial Court has noticed that the petitioner

herein, who was defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court

had appeared in response to the summons issued to him on

04.03.2023. Thereafter, he had engaged the counsel, who

represented him w.e.f. 04.03.2023. The impugned order

came to be passed on 26.03.2024 and evidently till date

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 ( 2025:HHC:15003 )

despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner herein had not

filed the written statement.

4. Thus, I see no illegality or perversity in the

impugned order. There is no error of jurisdiction either.

Further, it can be seen that the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order passed on 26.03.2024 after almost one year.

5. The reason now being assigned for not filing the

written statement or delay in filing the instant petition is that

the petitioner was not keeping good health. In support,

certain documents have been placed on record, however, I

am not convinced. The documents placed on record are OPD

slips and there is no medical opinion that the petitioner was

not in a position to instruct his counsel for filing of written

statement.

6. In result, there is no merit in the instant petition

and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications,

if any, also stand disposed of.

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 21st May, 2025.

(jai)