Abhay Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

2026:HHC:30095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	CMPMO No.	: 108 of 2026
	Decided on	: 20.07.2026
Abhay Chand		…Petitioners
	Versus
State of H.P. & Others		…Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner : Mr. B	hupender Gupta, Senior
Advocate Advocate	with Mr. Harshit Sharma, .
For the respondents : Mr. H.S. General,	Rawat, Additional Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶9

Petitioner Abhay Chand, has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Kangra, District Kangra, in CMP No.11443 of 2023 in Civil Suit No.99 of 2014, titled as ‘Abhay

¶10

Chand versus State of H.P. & Others’.

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

2026:HHC:30095

¶14

When the case was listed for rebuttal evidence,

¶15

application, under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), has been filed,

¶16

for placing on record the following documents, particulars of which have been mentioned, in order dated 18.12.2025 :

¶17

“a. Missal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid Khata No.237 min;

¶18

b) Mutation No.95 attested on 03.01.1979;

¶19

c) Certified copies of Jamabandi for the year 193334, along with Hindi translation;

¶20

d) Certified copies of Jamabandi for the year 194142 along with Hindi Trnaslation;

¶21

e) Certified copies of Jamabandi for the year 195960 along with Hindi translation;

¶22

f) Mutation No.550 (sale) with Hindi Translation;

¶23

g) Certified copies of jamabandi for the year 193738 along with Hindi translation;

¶24

h) Copy of mutation No.153.

¶25

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

¶26

that the abovementioned documents are necessary for the just adjudication of the case. It has also been pointed out by the

¶27

3

¶28

2026:HHC:30095

¶29

learned senior counsel for the petitioner that these documents are per se admissible, in evidence, and the application cannot

¶30

be dismissed simply on the ground that these documents are tendered in rebuttal evidence.

¶31

The prayer, as made, in the application, has been negated by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Kangra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), on the ground that the application, for production of these documents, has been moved, at a belated stage, as, according to the learned trial Court, the case is at the stage of rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff.

¶32

The said order of the learned trial Court has been assailed before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 14 (3)

¶33

of the CPC, are reproduced, as under:

¶34

“(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.”

¶35

4 2026:HHC:30095

¶36

The documents, sought to be produced, are

¶37

revenue records and veracity of those documents is also not challenged, by the respondents.

¶38

Considering the true import of the procedural law, according to which, the matter should be decided, on merits and not on technicalities, as well as, on account of default/inability of the parties to produce the documents, at a particular stage.

¶39

The ultimate goal, which has to be achieved, through the procedural law, is to give opportunity to the parties to the lis to prove their case. The proceedings of the case should not be equated with throwing on the dice, i.e., single default would not be fatal to the case of the parties.

¶40

Moreover, even if the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his case, his right to produce these documents, cannot be taken away, which, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are necessary for the just adjudication of the case.

¶41

For causing the delay, the other party can be compensated, in terms of money.

¶42

5 2026:HHC:30095

¶43

Considering all these facts, the present petition is

¶44

allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to produce the above mentioned documents, in evidence, subject to costs of Rs.20,000/, to be paid to the defendants.

¶45

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶46

disposed of.

¶47

July 20, 2026 ( ps )

¶48

( Virender Singh ) Judge

Abhay Chand v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay Chand v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khewatdaran (Right Holders) of Village Kanam through LRs Rajender Singh and Ors. Vs Khewatdaran (Right Holders) of Village Shiaso through LRs Dolma and Ors.

Desh Raj Vs Sunehari Devi

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Hp

Mohammad Shiraz Vs State of Hp

UOI and Others Vs Manglu Alias Mangloo Ram and Another

NHAI Vs Bhagat Ram and Anr.