Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/632/2026 on 16 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH Court OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.632 of 2026 Decided on: 16.10.2026 Durga Dass … Petitioner Versus Uttam Chand … Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________
_
For the petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 22.09.2026, passed by the learned Court of learned Civil Judge, Chachyot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, the application filed by him to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or perversity therein.
3. The civil suit relates to the year 2015. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the learned Court below. It is not in dispute that opportunities stood granted to the present petitioner to lead evidence after the filing of the suit as from the month of May, 2017. Nothing prevented the petitioner from examining the proposed two witnesses in the course of recording of his evidence. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the names of the said two witnesses was not included in the list of witnesses by
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
mistake or by oversight, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, because the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not to fill up the lacunae in the case. This is more so in light of the fact that one of the proposed witnesses happens to be the real brother of the defendant and it cannot be the case of the petitioner, by any stretch of imagination, that he was either not aware of the existence of such a witness or he was not aware as to what the relevance of statement of said witness could be in the adjudication of the suit.
4. Therefore, obviously, as the filing of the application was just to delay the matter and an attempt to fill up the lacunae and that too, at the stage when the case was listed for final hearing, the rejection of the application by the learned Court below calls for no interference.
5. A perusal of the application filed for leading additional evidence, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-9, demonstrates that the reason given therein for filing the same is that the plaintiff during the course of evidence could not examine most important witness to prove the factum of his exclusive possession over the suit land. The witnesses, whom the plaintiff could not examine due to oversight were Chuar Singh, the real brother of the defendant and Dola Ram, Ward Member of Chail Ward of Old Bassa Panchayat. Besides this averment, nothing is mentioned in the application as to what prevented the petitioner herein from including the name of these two witnesses in the list of witnesses. The application, lacks material, justifying the filing of the application at a belated stage and therefore also, the same has rightly been rejected by the learned Court below, in light of the reasoning which has been assigned therein.
6. Accordingly, in light of above discussions, as this Court find no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge October 16, 2026 (Rishi)