SANJEEV SOOD Vs. FAQUIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dtd. 21/7/2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 900587/2014, titled Faquir Chand Vs. Sanjeev Sood & Ors., in terms whereof, the right of the petitioners to lead evidence was closed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners herein are defendants No.1 and 3 before the learned Trial Court. In terms of the record, as after service, they did not appear before the learned Trial Court, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte. It is further evident from the record that during the pendency of the suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed and post submission of report by the learned Local Commissioner, an application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, again fresh n tices were issued to the present petitioners, who responded thereto and filed the written statement to the amended plaint. However, said written statement was not confined to the amendments which were allowed by the learned Trial Court but related to the entire Civil Suit. Thereafter, issues were framed on 24/4/2024. The Court stands informed that the witnesses of the plaintiff were allowed to be cross-examined by the present petitioners and it was at the stage of the leading of the evidence of the petitioners that in terms of the impugned order, the right of the petitioners to lead evidence was closed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is per se perverse as the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that when the petitioners were allowed to join the proceedings after amendment in the plaint, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to have denied the right of leading evidence to the petitioners. He further submitted that in fact, as far as the petitioners are concerned, according to them, the purported cause of action pleaded against them by the plainti arose only after the amendment was incorporated in the plaint. He submitted that as these extremely impor ant aspects of the matter were ignored by the learned T ial Court, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the petitioners be granted opportunity to lead evidence.