Gyaru Ram (deceased) through Lr Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Gyaru Ram (deceased) through Lr Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; order dated 17.6.2026 of the Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib set aside; plaintiff Gyaru Ram permitted to tender the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 79/1 of 2005 in his evidence; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff-petitioner should be permitted to tender, as additional evidence under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, the certified copy of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 79/1 of 2005, at a stage when the evidence of both parties had been closed and the case was listed for arguments.

Court's answer

Considering the stand taken by the plaintiff in para-3 of the replication, the Court held that the plaintiff was able to make out a case in his favour.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is allowed and the order dated 17.6.2026 passed by the learned trial Court is ordered to be set aside.

Key takeaways

Plaintiff Gyaru Ram is permitted to tender the certified copy of the judgment and decree (Civil Suit No. 79/1 of 2005) in his evidence.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, CMPMO No. 365 of 2026, decided 16.7.2026 — Virender Singh, J. (oral). Petitioner Gyaru Ram, by petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the order dated 17.6.2026 of the Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 14, read with Section 151 CPC, to lead additional evidence — the certified copy of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 79/1 of 2005 ('Surender Singh versus Mohar Singh') — in CMA No. 294 of 2026, moved after the evidence of both parties was closed and the case was listed for arguments. Considering the stand taken by the plaintiff in para-3 of the replication, the Court held that the plaintiff had made out a case in his favour, allowed the petition, set aside the trial Court's order, and permitted the plaintiff to tender the certified copy of the judgment and decree in his evidence.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 365 of 2026

Decided on: 16.7.2026

Gyaru Ram

… Petitioner Versus …Respondents

Tapender Singh & others _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani and Mr. Virender Chauhan, Adocates. For the Respondents : None. Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 17.6.2026, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), whereby an application preferred by the present petitioner, under Order 7 Rule 14, read with Section 151 CPC, for leading additional evidence in CMA No. 294 of 2026, has been dismissed.

After arguing for some time, it has been submitted that the plaintiff wants to tender the certified copy of the judgment and decree, passed in Civil Suit No. 79/1 of 2005, titled as, ‘Surender Singh versus Mohar Singh’, in his

evidence. The prayer made in the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was dismissed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

The application was moved at the stage when evidence of both the parties was closed and the case was listed for arguments.

Considering the stand taken by the plaintiff in para-3 of the replication, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is able to make out a case, in his favour. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 17.6.2026, passed by the learned trial Court is ordered to be set aside and plaintiff Gyaru Ram is permitted to tender the certified copy of judgment and decree, as aforesaid, in his evidence.

With these observations, the present petition is

disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

(Virender Singh) 16.7.2026 Judge Kalpana