IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.M.P.M.O. No. 103 of 2010 with C.M.P.M.Os. No. 104 & 105 of 2010. Decided on: 30th August, 2010. Chief Managing Director, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., Himfed Building, Shimla and another. ….Petitioners/defendants. (in all the petitions). -Versus- M/s. Kundan Lal Hari Ram & Company, Engineers & Builders, Clenmire Cottage, Longwood and another. …Respondents/plaintiffs. (in all the petitions). Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner (s). : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajiv Sarkek, Advocate. (in all the petitions). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same have been taken up together for disposal. 2. These petitions are directed against a common order dated 07.01.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 6, Shimla, whereby he has dismissed the applications preferred by the petitioners/defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for convenience sake). The defendants have filed applications under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record certain documents, as detailed in the applications. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs” for convenience sake) filed reply to the applications. The learned trial Court has dismissed the applications by passing a well reasoned order on 07.01.2010. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2008. The written statement was filed by the defendants in the month of August, 2008 and the issues were framed on 29.10.2008. Five effective opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead their evidence, however, despite last opportunity granted, the defendants did not examine any witness. However, the applications under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed. The defendants had given no explanation, whatsoever, why the documents could not be filed at the time of filing of the written statement. The defendants were not diligent in pursuing their case. Learned trial Court has correctly understood and applied the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure while dismissing the applications preferred by the defendants. 4. However, in the interest of justice, the defendants are permitted to lead their evidence by way of last opportunity on 22nd September, 2010, at their own costs before the learned trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-, as costs. 5. In view of observations/directions made hereinabove, all the petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 30, 2010. (bhupender)