Dismissed¶26

Gautam Thakur v. Sonam Angmo and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2025CMPMO/747/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, CMPMO No. 747 of 2024, decided 07.03.2025 (Satyen Vaidya, J.). Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India; supervisory jurisdiction restrictive; gross illegality or perversity; Order 8 Rule 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure; placing original agreement dated 10.12.2010 on record; additional evidence; relevance of documents; Civil Suit No. 139 of 2025; Civil Judge Manali; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Nothing on record suggests that the observation made by the learned Trial Court is illegal or perverse; counsel for the petitioner, despite arguing the document was not totally irrelevant, could not show any material to substantiate his contention. ¶25

Gautam Thakur Vs Sonam Angmo and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.10.2024 of the learned Civil Judge, Manali, rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC and his application for leading additional evidence, suffers from illegality, perversity or lack of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restrictive and can be exercised only where there is gross illegality or perversity committed by courts or tribunals.

¶26

Key takeaways

In the present case no illegality, much less perversity, was found in the impugned order, nor could it be said to have been passed without jurisdiction; accordingly the petition was dismissed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 19.10.2024 of the learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 139 of 2025, whereby the petitioner-defendant's application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record the original of an agreement dated 10.12.2010, and his application for leading additional evidence to prove its execution, were rejected. Held: the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is restrictive and exercisable only where there is gross illegality or perversity; the Trial Court had found the documents unrelated to the suit land and unnecessary for adjudication, and nothing on record showed its observation to be illegal or perverse; no illegality, perversity or want of jurisdiction was found in the impugned order. Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No. : 747 of 2024

¶3

Decided on : 07.03.2025

Gautam Thakur

.…Petitioner.

Versus

Sonam Angmo and Ors.

…Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioner :Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents :Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karanveer Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶12

:Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 4.

¶13

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

¶14

Mr. Karanveer Thakur, learned counsel,

¶15

appears for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5252 )

¶19

Heard.

¶20

By way of instant petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed order dated 19.10.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 139 of 2025, whereby a common order has been passed to decide two separate applications one being under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner for placing on record original of agreement dated 10.12.2010 and the other for leading additional evidence to prove the execution of said documents.

¶21

Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties has rejected both the prayers made by the petitioner, who is defendant before learned Trial Court, primarily, on the premise that the petitioner had failed to show the relevance of the documents sought to be placed on record or proved. It has been specifically observed by the learned Trial Court that the documents sought to be placed on record does not relate to the suit land and further the petitioner had

¶22

¶23

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5252 )

¶24

not placed on record any material to show that the said documents would be necessary for adjudication of the case.

¶25

I have not found anything on record to suggest that the observation made by learned Trial Court is illegal or perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner though strenuously argued that the document could not be stated to be totally irrelevant however, he also has not been able to show any material to substantiate his contention.

¶26

The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, of this Court is restrictive and can be exercised only where there is gross illegality or perversity conducted by the Courts or Tribunals. In the case at hand, I do not find any illegality much less perversity in the impugned order. It also cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶27

¶28

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5252 )

¶29

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶30

shall also stand disposed of.

¶31

(Satyen Vaidya) 7^h March, 2025 Judge ( sushma )

Gautam Thakur v. Sonam Angmo and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Thakur v. Sonam Angmo and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjana Kumari Vs State of Hp

Amar Singh Vs State of Hp

Sheela Devi Vs State of Hp

Ravinder Kumar Bansal Vs Pankaj Gupta

Hari Singh Vs State of Hp

Neeraj Kumar and Another Vs Dasondhi Lal