Dismissed

Hari Singh and Others v. Mahant Ram and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Dec 2023CMPMO/431/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order allowing respondents to lead additional evidence and amend their written statement, holding that the petitioners were estopped from challenging it after accepting the associated costs.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, and the pending applications, if any, were left with the parties to bear their own costs.

Hari Singh and Others Vs Mahant… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No. 431/2023 Decided on : 8.12.2023

¶3

Hari Singh & ors. …..Petitioners Versus Mahant Ram & ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioners: Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2, 3(i) to 3(iv) and 4 to 6.

¶4

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)

¶5

This petition takes exception to the order dated

¶6

18.7.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Mandi, whereby an application filed by the respondents herein under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence and another application under Section 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement came to be allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

¶7

2 The learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the statement recorded by the learned court below, which reads as under:-

¶8

“I am authorized by the original counsel to cross-examine the witnesses as well as to receive the costs. As such, I

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

have received rupees ten thousands (Rs.10,000/-) for allowing the applications u/o 6 Rule 17 and u/0 41 Rule 27. Sh. Hukam Chand Bar Clerk of Sh. B.C. Sharma, Advocate, is also present.”

¶12

3 Since the petitioners have already accepted the costs, as awarded by the learned court below, they are estopped and not otherwise legally competent to assail the order passed by the learned court below.

¶13

4 In taking this view, I am duly supported and fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Khanna vs. International Society For Krishna Consciousness, 2001 (1) PLR 704 , relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

¶14

“3. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondent for mandatory injunction. Af- ter the conclusion of the appellant's evidence but before the respondent's evidence, the appellant moved an application for production of additional documents. That application was allowed by the trial Court on payment of costs. The respondent herein filed a civil revision in the High Court, challenging the said order, but, at the same time, accepted the payment of costs. The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the trial Court's order.

¶15

4. In our opinion, this is not an appropriate case where the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC to set aside the order of the trial Court No prejudice can be regarded as having been caused to the respondent with the trial Court having permitted the

¶16

¶17

production of additional documents. What is, however more important is that the respondent had accepted the costs and, therefore, would be estopped from challenging the said order in the High Court. The decision of the trial Court allowing the application of the appellant under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC appears to be correct and the High Court erred in setting aside the same.”

¶18

5 Since the instant petition is not maintainable,

¶19

therefore, the same is dismissed so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶20

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶21

8.12.2023

¶22

(pankaj)

Hari Singh and Others v. Mahant Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh and Others v. Mahant Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Hp

Secretary Health Vs Anshika Kumari and Another

Nirmal Jeet Kaur Vs Manju Mamik and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Amar Chand Vs Sapna Devi

State of Hp Vs Baldev Singh