Disposed¶17

Hari Krishan v. Devinder Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Sept 2025CMPMO/492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hari Krishan v. Devinder Kumar, CMPMO No.492 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 08.09.2025 by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel (oral). Recall of Trial Court order dated 08.05.2025 striking off right to file written statement; one last opportunity granted subject to costs of Rs.15,000/- payable by Bank Draft to the respondent on 11.09.2025; default voids the relief; no further opportunity if written statement not filed by that date. Advocates: Dhiraj Thakur for petitioner; Arun K. Verma for respondent.

What did the court decide?

Recall of order dated 08.05.2025 and one final opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement, conditional on payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- by Bank Draft to the respondent on 11.09.2025; interim order, if any, vacated. ¶17

Hari Krishan Vs Devinder Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.05.2025 striking off the petitioner's right to file written statement should be set aside and one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file the written statement.

¶11

Court's answer

The impugned order prima facie does not suffer from any vice, as obviously the petitioner/defendant was not filing the written statement and the learned Trial Court had no option but to close the right; however, one opportunity is given in the peculiar facts of the case.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Order dated 08.05.2025 is recalled and one more opportunity, as prayed for, is granted to the petitioner to file written statement, subject to costs of Rs.15,000/-.

¶15

Key takeaways

If costs of Rs.15,000/- are paid by the petitioner to the respondent by way of a Bank Draft on 11.09.2025, the learned Trial Court shall give the petitioner the opportunity to file written statement; if the costs are not paid on that date, this order will lose its efficacy and no opportunity will be granted.ratio¶16
If, after the grant of opportunity, the written statement is not filed by the petitioner on or before the said date, no further opportunity shall be granted.ratio¶16
The petition stands disposed of; interim order, if any, stands vacated; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (CMPMO No.492 of 2025, decided 08.09.2025, Ajay Mohan Goel J., oral order) recalled the Trial Court's order dated 08.05.2025 by which the petitioner-defendant's right to file written statement had been struck off. Observing that the impugned order prima facie did not suffer from any vice since the petitioner was not filing the written statement and the Trial Court had no option but to close the right, the Court nonetheless granted one more opportunity in the peculiar facts of the case, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent by Bank Draft on 11.09.2025, the date already fixed before the Trial Court. On default of payment, the order loses its efficacy and no opportunity will be granted; if the written statement is not filed on or before that date, no further opportunity shall be granted. Petition disposed of; interim order, if any, vacated; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:HHC:30596

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No.492 of 2025

¶4

Decided on: 08.09.2025

¶5

Hari Krishan … Petitioner Versus Devinder Kumar … Respondent

¶6

Coram

¶7

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

¶8

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Arun K. Verma, Advocate.

¶9

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Notice stands served. Mr. Arun K. Verma, learned Counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

¶11

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of order 08.05.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the right of the petitioner to file written statement has been struck off.

¶12

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, though the order prima facie does not suffers from any vice as obviously the petitioner/ defendant was not filing the written statement, learned Trial Court was having no option, but to close the right of the said party to file written statement, however, to give one opportunity to the petitioner to file 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

2025:HHC:30596

¶15

written statement in the peculiar facts of the case as mentioned in the petition, order dated 08.05.2025 is re-called and one more opportunity, as prayed for, is granted to the petitioner to file written statement, subject to costs of Rs.15,000/-.

¶16

The Court stands informed that the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 11.09.2025. In case, on 11.09.2025, costs of Rs.15,000/- is paid by the present petitioner to the respondent herein by way of a Bank Draft, then an opportunity shall be given by the learned Trial Court to the present petitioner to file written statement. In case, the costs is not paid on the said date, then this order will loose its efficacy and no opportunity will be granted to the present petitioner to file written statement and further, if after the grant of opportunity, written statement is not filed by the petitioner on or before the said date, then no further opportunity shall be granted.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶19

September 08, 2025 (Rishi)

Hari Krishan v. Devinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Krishan v. Devinder Kumar

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

Krishan Kumar Gupta Vs State of Hp

Vidhya Sagar and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Toju Vs Mohan Kalta

Rajesh Kalia Vs District Collector and Anr.

Dharam Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Salita Devi Vs Parveen Kumar