Sunder Singh Vs Dassi Devi

¶1

2025:HHC:27253

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No. 433 of 2018 Decided on : 12.08.2025

¶4

Shri Sunder Singh. Smt. Dassi Devi

¶5

…Petitioner Versus …Respondent

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent	:	Mr. Hem Chand Sharma, Advocate, for proposed respondent No.1(i).
		None for proposed respondents No.1(ii) to 1(iv).

¶8

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶9

CMP.M No. 641 of 2021

¶10

Proposed legal representatives of deceased

¶11

respondent stand served. Mr. Hem Chand Sharma, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of proposed legal representative No.1(i). As despite service none has put in

¶12

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

¶13

2

¶14

2025:HHC:27253

¶15

appearance on behalf of proposed legal representatives No.1(ii) to 1(iv), they are ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

¶16

By way of this application, a prayer has been made to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent and for condoning the delay in filing the said application.

¶17

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the application is condoned and abatement is set aside. Proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent are hereby impleaded as respondents No.1(i) to 1(iv). Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

CMPMO No. 433 of 2018

¶19

Notice confined to newly impleaded respondent No.1(i), at this stage. Mr. Hem Chand Sharma, learned counsel, has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶21

“b. That order dated 12.09.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.7, Shimla, whereby evidence of petitioner has been closed may be set aside and consequently, petitioner may be

¶22

3

¶23

2025:HHC:27253

¶24

permitted to be examined as his own witness as explained above and also, he may be permitted to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility on the date which may be fixed for this purpose by this Hon’ble Court. ”

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated

¶26

12.09.2018, in CMA No. 31-6/2014, titled as Dassi Devi Vs.

¶27

Sunder Singh, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.7, Shimla, in terms whereof the right of the petitioner, who is the defendant before the learned Trial Court, to lead evidence, was closed.

¶28

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1(i), though this Court finds no perversity in the order, as it is evident that despite reasonable opportunities granted to the petitioner to lead complete evidence, he failed to do so, but on the request so made on behalf of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court shows one indulgence to the effect that this Court allows the cross-examination of the petitioner, subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff.

¶29

With these observations, this petition is disposed of,

¶30

4

¶31

2025:HHC:27253

¶32

by modifying the impugned order to the above stated effect. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 08.09.2025. On the said date, the cost, by way of a bank draft, shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. If cost is paid on the next date, by the defendant to the plaintiff, then a date shall be fixed by the learned Trial Court for the cross-examination of the plaintiff, which shall not be later than 31.10.2025. It is clarified that in case, cost is not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on 08.09.2025 or after payment of cost, if the opportunity so granted to the petitioner by the Court, is not availed then this order will loose its efficacy and no further indulgence shall be granted to the petitioner, by the learned Trial Court.

¶33

The petition is disposed of in above-said terms. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶35

August 12, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)

Sunder Singh v. Dassi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunder Singh v. Dassi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hpseb Ltd. Vs Ms Winsome Textile Industries

Prem Singh Thakur Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another

Devi Singh Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Subash Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Tushar Katoch Vs State of Hp and Others