Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhatia vs Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhatia on 26 May, 2018
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 199 of 2018.
.
Date of decision: May 26, 2018.
Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhatia. ......Petitioner.
Versus
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhatia. ....Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur,
Advocate.
For the respondent : Nemo.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Order dated 15.5.2018 passed in an application under Order 16 Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 CPC registered as CMA No. 137 of 2018 filed in civil suit No. 119 of 2008 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nurpur is under challenge in this petition.
2. The complaint is that after allowing the amendment in the plaint the permission to examine the witnesses to dissolution deed dated 31.3.2003 of the firm M/s Rama Krishana Feed Industry at Nagawari has been wrongly denied. The record 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2018 23:01:22 :::HCHP 3available at this stage reveals that by way of amendment the petitioner-plaintiff was permitted to plead the factum of .
dissolution of partnership firm M/s Bhatia Hatchery and M/s Rama Krishna Feed Industry vide dissolution deed dated 31.3.2003 in paras-5 and 6 of the plaint.
3. After the amendment allowed in the plaint, the application came to be filed with a prayer to allow the petitioner-
matter of
fact,
plaintiff to examine the attesting witnesses to this deed and also the Notary public who has attested the dissolution deed. As a pleadings qua dissolution of the above partnership firm were already there in paras 1 to 4 and 7 to 12 of the plaint originally filed. By way of amendment the factum of dissolution thereof vide dissolution deed 31.3.2003 has been ordered to be pleaded in paras 5 and 6 of the plaint also.
Therefore, when in the original plaint the pleadings to that effect were already there and the petitioner-plaintiff was given the opportunity to produce the evidence including last and final as reflected in the impugned order and as the Court had to close his evidence by an order passed to that effect, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application vide the order under challenge in this petition.
4. As a matter of fact, allowing the application would have nothing but merely a misplaced sympathy which has no place in law. Now the suit is at the stage of recording ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2018 23:01:22 :::HCHP 3 defendant's evidence, the opportunity to produce additional evidence has rightly been declined. As a matter of fact, what the .
petitioner-plaintiff failed to do while in the witness box and after his evidence closed by an order of the Court, he intends to do by seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. He, therefore, has not approached the Court with clean hands. The petition, as such, being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
5. to The observations hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case.
6. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for being taken on record.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
May 26, 2018 ( vs) ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2018 23:01:22 :::HCHP