CMPMO/276/2026 of HIRA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs INDIRA DEVI AND OTHERS on 4 August 2026

2026:HHC:33448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 276 of 2026

Decided on : 04.08.2026 Hira Singh & another

...Petitioner. Versus Indira Devi & others ...Respondents.

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 8th May 2026 as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to produce the original copy of mutation of deceased Maniya Ram has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts as emerge in the present case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share of late Sh. Prem Singh, their ancestor out of the total suit land and mutation No. 2368 attested on 13th May 1977 in the name of late Bhup Singh, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 2026:HHC:33448 ancestor of defendants, as Jodidara brother, is null and void, illegal, and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.

3. As per the case as set up by the plaintiffs, the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendants are real brothers having their separate families. Father of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 1, late Sh. Prem Singh, died on 26th May 1976, who was co-owner in possession with his brother, late Sh. Bhup Singh, having half share over the suit land measuring 30.08 bighas, total land measuring 70.08 bighas, situated at Mauza Millah, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, which is mentioned in mutation No. 2368.

4. After the death of late Sh. Prem Singh, defendant No. 1, Sundar Singh, approached the Patwari Halqa to register the mutation of inheritance in the name of his father, late Bhup Singh @ Kalia, as Jodidara brother, and with the collusion of the revenue staff, the mutation bearing No 2368 was attested by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Shillai, on 13th May 1977. The ancestors of the parties were living in joint family, and the suit land, being ancestral property, was being jointly cultivated during the lifetime of the ancestors till December 2012.

5. In January 2013, on account of family dispute, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to separate the share of plaintiffs, which is half share of late Prem Singh in the movable 3 2026:HHC:33448 and immovable property, including the residential house constructed thereon by the ancestors of the parties jointly, but the defendants did not bother and openly gave threatening to the plaintiff. Therefore, under such circumstances, suit for declaration came to be filed by the plaintiffs.

6. The suit has been contested by the defendants by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, locus standi, limitation, costs, etc. On merits, all the averments as made in the plaint have been specifically refuted and denied.

7. It has been stated that the entry contained in the Parivar Register of 1978 of Gram Panchayat, Millah is false and fraudulent entry, wherein the plaintiffs have been shown wife and sons of late Sh. Prem Singh. Even the date of birth and ages of the plaintiffs are false. Therefore, the entry shown in the Parivar Register cannot be relied upon.

8. The case as set up by the defendants is that the plaintiffs have got no relationship with late Sh. Prem Singh, thus they have got no concern with the suit land. It has come on record that suit was filed in the year 2015, and thereafter, the issues were framed in 2016 by the learned trial Court and matter was listed for recording the evidence of the plaintiffs, and subsequently, an application came to be filed for the amendment 4 2026:HHC:33448 of the plaint, which came to be allowed, and thereafter, again the matter was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiffs.

10. It is also part of the record that additional issue was framed on 5th August 2024. Thereafter, again when the matter was listed for the evidence, the instant application came to be filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. The case file reveals that the suit which has been instituted by the plaintiffs primarily hinges around the fact whether the plaintiffs are the successors of late Sh. Prem Singh or not.

11. It is case of the plaintiffs that being the successors of Prem Singh, they are owners of the suit land to the extent of half share, and that the mutation which has been attested on 13th May 1977 in the name of late Bhup Singh, i.e., the ancestor of the defendants, is null and void. The perusal of the application shows that the applicants/petitioners/plaintiffs intend to place on record the mutation No. 544 dated 17th April 1969/61 of deceased Maniya Ram.

12. It is not understandable that when the dispute at hand pertains to the succession of late Sh. Prem Singh, then how the present application whereby copy of mutation of deceased Maniya Ram is being intended to be placed on record is relevant for the adjudication of the suit in question.

5 2026:HHC:33448

13. The learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the instant application is alien to the controversy in the present case, and it has got no bearing on the merits of the present Civil Suit.

14. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the pleadings of the parties, has come to the conclusion that the instant application which has been filed does not in any manner help the Court to determine the controversy effectively and properly. The copy of mutation with respect to property of deceased Maniya Ram has got no relevance in the present case. Therefore, the application for placing the copy of the mutation which is intended to be placed on record has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court.

15. Even otherwise, the perusal of the application shows that there is no averment in the same that how the said document is material for proper adjudication and determination of the Civil Suit. Further, it has also not been mentioned in the application that why the said document was not filed by the plaintiffs at the time of the institution of the Civil Suit. The plaintiffs have filed the application in a casual and routine manner, whereas it has got no bearing on the merits of the main case.

6 2026:HHC:33448

16. The learned trial Court has rightly determined the point in controversy and has legally come to the conclusion that the said copy of mutation is not relevant for the adjudication of the case in hand.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the scope of interference in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The Hon’ble Apex in Civil Appeal No(s).13801 of 2025, titled as Shri Digant vs M/s P.D.T. Trading Co. & others, has discussed the scope of interference while exercising the power under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs thereof read as under:- “22. The scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a threeJudge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. 1 This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a 7 2026:HHC:33448 manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.”

23. In the case on hand, the appellate court had considered whether the proceeding in detail the issue as to court was justified in trial with the case, without further notice to the defendants, after submission of pursis (Exh.42) by defendants’ counsel, claiming no instructions. After a threadbare analysis and taking into consideration surrounding circumstances, the appellate court held that the trial court had committed no wrong proceeding with the matter court representing with noticed the the that defendants matter. The appellate Court noticed tht the advocate representing the defndants had claimed no instructions but not sought withdrawal of his Vakalatnama and the matter thereafter remained pending for over three months till it was decided in March 2015. In between no effort was made by the defendants to engage another lawyer. Moreover, the defendants did not come up with a case that their lawyer’s notice was not served on them therefore, they could not engage another counsel Besides that, the record also indicated that the intention of the defendants was to delay the proceedings because earlier also the suit had proceeded ex parte against them though, later, those orders were recalled. Therefore, in our view, once the appellate court took into consideration all relevant aspects including the fact that pursis (Exh.42) did not seek withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, and withdrawal was not even permitted, there was no such jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court without any justification procedure went consider the procedure prescribed for withdrawal Vakalatnama when neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal. In such circumstances, the entire exercise of the High Court was misconceived. More so, when the view taken by the appellate Court that defendant cannot take advantage of his own wrong was a plausible view based on materials available on record. Hence, in our view, appellate court’s order was not amenable to interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

8 2026:HHC:33448 The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in interfering with well reasoned order of the appellate Court.”

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/S GARMENT CRAFT Vs. PRAKASH CHAND GOEL, (2022) 4 SCC 181, decided on 11.01.2022, has held that High Court while exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction will not act as a Court of First Appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence on facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse,1Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.

9 2026:HHC:33448

16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”

19. The factum that the counsel for the appellant had applied for the certified copy would show that the counsel for the appellant was aware that the ex-parte decree had been passed on the account of failure to lead defence evidence. This would not, however, be a good ground and reason to set aside and substitute the opinion formed by the trial court that the appellant being incarcerated was unable to lead evidence and another chance should be given to the appellant to lead defence evidence. The discretion exercised by the trial court in granting relief, did not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or was not a finding so perverse that it was unsupported by evidence to justify it. There could be some justification for the respondent to argue that the appellant was possibly aware of the ex-parte 10 2026:HHC:33448 decree and therefore the submission that the appellant came to know of the ex-parte decree only on release from jail on 6th May 2017 is incorrect, but this would not affect the factually correct explanation of the appellant that he was incarcerated and could not attend the civil suit proceedings from 6th October 2015 to 6th May 2017. If it was felt 30 that the application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed belatedly, the court could have given an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and costs could have been imposed. The facts as known, equally apply as grounds for condonation of delay. It is always important to take a holistic and overall view and not get influenced by aspects which can be explained. Thus, the reasoned decision of the trial court on elaborate consideration of the relevant facts did not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.”

19. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

20. However, it is made clear that observations as made in the present case will not have any bearing on the merits of the main case.

21. All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma)

Judge

August 04, 2026 (Nisha)