IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 587 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 23, 2010 Gurdeep Singh and others ..Petitioners. Versus. Hans Raj and others ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner (s): Ms.Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Ms.Devyani Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.2009 whereby the application filed by the present petitioners (hereinafter referred to as defendants No.4 to 6) for permission to lead additional evidence and place on record a copy of the sale deed dated 11.6.2002, has been rejected. The undisputed facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) in the year 2002 for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land along with a prayer that the defendants be restrained from interfering 2 in their possession. This suit was contested by the petitioners herein. After trial when the case had been argued and listed for judgment, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying that they may be permitted to amend the written statement and raise a plea that they were purchasers for bona fide consideration since they have purchased the suit land on 11.6.2002 from defendant No.1. Admittedly, this application was dismissed on 5th June, 2009. Thereafter, the suit was again fixed for arguments on 26th June, 2009 when the present application was filed. I have been informed at the Bar that the order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 has not been challenged and has become final. Admittedly, this application under Order 18 Rule 17-A had been filed after arguments were heard. The sale deed in question was executed on 11.6.2002. A copy of the application has been filed with this petition and there is virtually no explanation as to why this sale deed was not filed earlier. The only explanation, if it may be called that, was that the petitioners-defendants were under the bona fide belief that they had already tendered the aforesaid document in evidence. It cannot be believed that a party or its counsel are not even 3 aware what documents had been tendered in evidence and what are not tendered. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitioners-defendants were not aware of this fact, when they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 specifically taking a plea that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, then at least it was their duty to have checked out what were the documents they had filed. This application remained pending for 3 months and no effort was made by the petitioners herein to produce the sale deed even at that stage. It is apparent that the petitioners-defendants are trying to delay the proceedings under the garb of filing applications on one pretext or the other. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. August 23, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV