Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1094 (HP)

Neelam Rana v. Meera Dewan

2015-08-13

P.S.RANA

body2015
ORDER 1. Present application is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking out response filed by non-applicants in CMP No. 4730 of 2015 titled Mrs. Neelam Rana vs. Mrs. Meera Dewan and Another. BIREF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Mrs. Meera Dewan wife of Sanjiv Dewan and another filed Civil Suit No. 32 of 2007 titled Mrs. Meera Diwan vs. Mrs. Neelam Rana for grant of decree in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant with prayer to direct defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of co-plaintiff No. 2 in respect of land and building comprised in khewat No. 50 min, Khatauni Mo.52 min and Khasra No. 191/188/137/12 measuring one bigha situated in mauza Mashobra Tehsil Kasauli District Solan HP. Plaintiffs also sought additional relief of decree of permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction in favour of co-plaintiff No. 2 and against defendant restraining defendant from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful exclusive use, occupation and possession of suit land. Civil Suit No. 32 of 2007 titled Mrs. Meera Dewan and Another vs. Mrs. Neelam Rana is pending before learned District Judge Solan for disposal. 3. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 32 of 2007 titled Mrs. Meera Dewan and another Vs. Mrs. Neelam Rana defendant Neelam Rana filed application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC before learned trial Court i.e. District Judge Solan H.P for sending supplementary agreement dated 1.10.2004 and power of attorney dated 1.10.2004 alleged to be executed by defendant to FSL Junga for examination of hand writing and for obtaining opinion of hand writing expert. Learned trial Court obtained the response of non-applicants and thereafter learned trial Court dismissed the application on dated 25.3.2015 filed by applicant-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that defendant has filed the present application just to wriggle out of admission already made by her in her pleading and evidence and on the ground that present application filed by defendant just to linger on proceedings of civil suit. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Judge Solan dated 25.3.2015 passed in CMP No. 60-S/6 of 2015 revisionist Mrs. Neelam Rana filed present Civil Revision No. 54 of 2015. 5. Civil Revision No. 54 of 2015 filed before High Court of HP was listed for preliminary hearing upon admission. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Judge Solan dated 25.3.2015 passed in CMP No. 60-S/6 of 2015 revisionist Mrs. Neelam Rana filed present Civil Revision No. 54 of 2015. 5. Civil Revision No. 54 of 2015 filed before High Court of HP was listed for preliminary hearing upon admission. During the pendency of Civil Revision No 54 of 2015 interim application No. 4730 of 2015 was filed by revisionist with prayer to stay the proceedings of learned trial Court till disposal of revision petition. 6. On dated 23rd April 2015 Civil Revision No. 54 of 2015 was listed before the High Court of HP for hearing and CMP No. 4730 of 2015 was also listed for hearing. On 23rd April 2015 Sh R.L.Sood learned senior Advocate appeared on behalf of non-applicants namely Mrs. Meera Dewan wife of Lt. Sanjiv Dewan (Retd.) and Ashok Chopra and sought time for filing response to CMP No. 4730 of 2015. Thereafter on dated 23rd April 2015 High Court of HP directed non-applicants to file response within ten days. High Court further directed that thereafter rejoinder be filed within two weeks and thereafter CMP No. 4730 of 2015 was listed for consideration on 29th May 2015. On dated 29th May 2015 when case was listed response to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 was also filed and it was directed by High Court that rejoinder if any be filed within two weeks. Thereafter on dated 1st July 2015 Mrs. Neelam Rana revisionist filed CMP No. 7411 of 2015 under Section 151 CPC pleaded therein that response to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 was not filed within ten days as directed by High Court and no extension to file response was sought from the High Court and therefore response filed to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 be taken out of record. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants upon CMP No. 7411 of 2015 and Court also perused the contents of CMP No. 7411 of 2015 and contents of response filed to CMP No. 7411 of 2015 carefully. 8. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants upon CMP No. 7411 of 2015 and Court also perused the contents of CMP No. 7411 of 2015 and contents of response filed to CMP No. 7411 of 2015 carefully. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that in view of the fact that response to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 was not filed within stipulated period i.e. within ten days w.e.f. 23rd April 2015 and same be taken out of the record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that on dated 23rd April 2015 High Court directed that response to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 will be filed within ten days. It is proved on record that response to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 was not filed within ten days but the same was filed on 29th May 2015 after the expiry of ten days. It is proved on record that response was filed by non-applicants to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 on dated 29th May 2015 when the case was listed for hearing. It is proved on record that on dated 29th May 2015 High Court of HP passed following order upon CMP No. 4730 of 2015. “Reply filed. Rejoinder if any be filed within two weeks. Thereafter the same be listed alongwith Civil Revision on 24.6.2015.” 9. It is prima facie proved on record that on dated 29th May 2015 objection was not raised by applicant and High Court passed judicial order that response stood filed and rejoinder if any be filed within two weeks. It is proved on record that objection was filed on dated 1st July 2015 by way of filing CMP No. 7411 of 2015. It is held that objection was filed at a belated stage and was not filed on 29th May 2015. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to take out the response filed by non-applicants in CMP No. 4730 of 2015. 10. It is held that objection was filed at a belated stage and was not filed on 29th May 2015. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to take out the response filed by non-applicants in CMP No. 4730 of 2015. 10. It is well settled law that parties are under legal obligation to comply judicial order of the Court in order to maintain majesty of law but in view of the fact that objection was not filed by non-applicants on dated 29th May 2015 and in view of the fact that written objection was filed by way of filing CMP No. 7411 of 2015 on dated 1st July 2015 after one month it is not expedient in the ends of justice to take out of record the response filed by non-applicants to CMP No. 4730 of 2015. It is further held that in view of the fact that non-applicants did not file response within stipulated period non-applicants are directed to pay costs to the tune of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) for non filing of response within stipulated period. 11. In view of above stated facts CMP No. 7411 of 2015 is disposed of accordingly. Response filed by non-applicants to CMP No. 4730 of 2015 will remain on record subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- (One thousand). Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. CMP No. 7411 of 2015 is disposed of.