Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jhndw-2 Statement Of Sh. Shivam Karol vs Om Prakash on 29 October, 2024
jhnDW-2 Statement of Sh. Shivam Karol, aged 34
years, C/o Megagonn Architects, Ist Floor,
Roshni Shopping Complex, Ram Chawk,
Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.176061.
On Oath
18.04.2023
I am an Architect by profession. I founded an
Architectural Design Firm with the aforesaid name since
2012. I was approached by defendant company for a visit
at Nalagarh of their factory in the year 2018.
Accordingly, I visited the factory of the defendant at
Nalagarh with my team on 29th April, 2018. I inspected
the entire premises of the factory and the defendants told
me to demarcate the premises of the factory as some
portion of the factory was rented out to the plaintiff by the
defendant. After inspecting the entire premises of the
factory with my team I prepared the report, which is mark
“X”, now Ext. DW-2/A, (original placed on record today),
which is duly singed by me. I have mentioned in the Ext.
DW-2/A, the premises which was disclosed to me to be
rented out to the plaintiff by the defendant in green
colour, however, there are certain portions adjacent to the
shed rented out to the plaintiff, which was also under the
occupation of the plaintiff, which has been reflected by
me in Ext. DW-2/A in red colour.
xxxxxxx Cross examination by Sh. B.C. Negi, Senior
Advocate with Sh.Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate for
the defendant xxxxx
I was approached by the defendant being a
professional telephonically on my mobile at Palampur. I
do not have office or branch at Nalagarh. Self stated that
at the relevant i.e. 2018, I had one branch at Chandigarh
also. The address of my Chandigarh Branch, Chamber
No.215, Second Floor, SCO-7, Sector-7, Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh. I did not check the reneve record before
demarcating the premises of the factory of the defendant.
I was given the detail regarding Khasra number and other
revenue details by the owner of the factory himself. I
never asked the owner of the factory to provide me the
rent deed of the area which has been rented out to the
plaintiff. Self stated that I was simply asked by the
defendant to mark the area which was in the possession of
the plaintiff at that relevant time. The defendant also
asked me to mark the additional area which was in the
possession of the plaintiff. There is one another factory
besides the factory of the defendant and there were open
fields on the other sides adjacent to the factory of the
defendant. The main road approaches directly to the
factory of the defendant, which was located on the end of
the road. It is incorrect that I never visited the spot. It is
also incorrect that I prepared the spot map Ext.DW-2/A,
while sitting in my office. I am not authorized to
demarcate the land as I am not a Revenue Officer. I did
not notice two roads inside the factory of the defendant
except the main road. I have not noticed six rain
harvesting tanks and soak pits within the premises of the
factory however, I have noticed one rain harvesting and
one septic tank inside the factory premises of the
defendant. It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
18th April, 2023
(ravinder)
-1:- Statement of SI Mohar Singh, P.S. Sadar Bilaspur,
H.P.
On Oath
18.08.2022
Stated that in the year 2021, I was posted as I.O.
at Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur. On 3.2.2020, a complaint
Ext.AW1/A was received at Police Station, Bilaspur filed by
the complainant Shri Kanshi Ram. The said complaint was
assigned to Karan Singh, I.O. for investigation. After
conducting the investigation, I.O Karan Singh submitted his
report Ext.AW1/B to S.P., Bilaspur and an entry was made in
the Daily Diary Report dated 8.3.2020, Ext.AW1/C. We have
not received any complaint in the month of July, 2020 at P.S.
Bilaspur by Kanshi Ram nor it was sent to P.S. Bilaspur by
the S.P Bilaspur for investigation. No record pertains to the
complaint in the month of July, 2020 is available at P.S.
Bilaspur. A complaint dated 3.12.2020 made by Kanshi Ram
at P.S., Bilaspur was received from the office of S.P.,
Bilaspur, which is Ext. AW1/D. On the complaint
Ext.AW1/D, the SHO Bilaspur submitted a report dated
5.12.2020, Ext.AW1/E (objected to on the mode of late
production and proof). The copy of daily dairy report dated
5.12.2020 is Ext.AW1/F. I have brought the original record
which is seen and returned.
Xxxxxxx Cross examination by Shri Janesh Gupta, Ld.
Counsel for the respondents/non-applicants xxxxx
I am posted at P.S. Bilaspur since 2021. It is
correct that in the complaints made by Kanshi Ram, I have
not personally investigated the matter. The I.Os, who had
conducted the investigations on the complaints of Kanshi
Ram, has stood transferred from P.S. Bilaspur. It is correct
that after my posting at P.S. Bilaspur, no further investigation
has been carried out by me on the above said complaints by
Kanshi Ram. It is correct that Ext.AW1/E does not bear my
signature.
Xxxxxxx Cross examination by Shri Himanshu Kapila,
learned vice counsel for the proforma respondents xxxxx
Opportunity given-Nil.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
18th August, 2022
(mamta)
Statement of Shri Kanwar Bhupinder Singh, Advocate,
for the defendant
Without Oath
18.04.2024
Stated that I give up defendant’s witnesses
mentioned in the list filed on 29.04.201 being not required to be
examined.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
18th April, 2023
(ravinder)
AW-1:- Statement of Shri Om Prakash S/o late Shri
Sant Ram R/o 17, Raelane Norwalk, CT. 006850-U.S.A
On Oath
11.07.2022
In the year 1993, I filed a Civil Suit for
declaration rendering the accounts and partition against the
respondent Rajinder Kumar Sood and others. In the year
September, 2000 this suit was partly decreed. Thereafter I
filed an appeal registered as RFA 365 of 2000, against the
judgment and decree in December, 2000 in the Hon’ble High
Court. Alongwith the suit, I filed an application for
restraining the defendants/respondents from changing the
nature of the suit property, alienation and transfer of the suit
property. On the above said application the Hon’ble Court
granted the stay on 03.01.2001, whereby the
respondent/defendant were restrained from changing the
nature of the suit land and transfer of the suit property. Later
on 05.03.2002 the original stay order was modified to the
extent that any transfer of the suit property shall be subject to
the final outcome of the appeal and in the meantime the
respondents were restrained from creating any third party
equity in the suit property. In the year 2012 in the month of
July, the respondent Shri Rajinder Kuamar Sood had filed a
case before Assistant Collector II Grade Theog regarding
removal of my name from the specific suit land comprising
Khasra Nos. 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004 and 1005 situated
at Kalinda, Mohal Matyana Tehsil Theog, District Shimla,
H.P. In the proceedings before the Assistant Collector II
Grade Theog the respondent/defendant Shri Rajinder Kumar
Sood has filed an application wherein he has given my wrong
address and impleaded my younger brother namely Shri
Rajneesh Sood who had expired in the year 1993. He
intentionally made a dead person as a party in the proceedings
and gave his wrong name as Kuka and his address. The
defendant/respondent had also specifically concealed the fact
qua pendency of the RFA No. 365 of 2000 and also the stay
order in effect and he further lied under oath that me and my
brother had left the country 30 to 35 years ago and never
came back to India thereafter to claim their share. The copy
of the application before Assistant Collector Theog is marked
as A-1 and the copies of the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by
the Assistant Collector Theog is marked as A-2. On the basis
of the above said application before the Assistant Collector II
Grade Theog the respondent/defendant Shri Rajinder Sood
had successfully remove my name from the revenue records.
By doing so the respondent has willfully disobeyed and
violated the orders of the Hon’ble Court and he is liable to
punished for contempt of court. The violation of the stay
order is still continuing as of day.
Xxxxxxx Cross examination by Shri Neeraj Gupta, Ld.
Counsel for the respondents xxxxx
I have done my Master in Electrical Engineering and
Computer Sciences. It is correct that I am well conversant
with English and Hindi languages. It is correct that I had not
personally gone through the plaint in the civil suit filed by me
in the year 1993. Self stated that at that time I had gone
through the plaint, however, the appeal was filed before the
Hon’ble High Court through my general power of attorney.
Again stated at the time of filing of the appeal I was at USA.
It is correct that during the proceedings of the civil suit I was
regularly attending the hearings in the Court. It is correct that
in that civil suit my statement was recorded in the Court. I
was consistently following the proceedings in the court
through my Advocate by telephone. In September, 2000 I
came to know that the suit has been partly decreed through
my counsel engaged at that time. It is incorrect that my suit
was dismissed by the Court of District Judge Shimla. It is
correct that I was attending the proceedings in the High Court
oftenly. I do not remember when for the first time, I had
gone through the contents of the grounds of appeal. Self
stated that in the mean time the counsel was regularly in
touch with me over the phone. It is correct that after filing of
the appeal my counsel confirmed me that the appeal had been
filed and the stay has been passed by the Hon’ble Court. It is
correct that after passing of the interim order I came to know
about the nature of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in
my appeal. It is correct that the subsequent modification of
the stay order was within my knowledge through my counsel.
It is correct that the present contempt proceedings has been
filed me after going through the contents of the contempt
application. It is incorrect that the stay/interim order was
completely modified by the court subsequently. It is correct
that there is no order in the stay application after order dated
05.03.2002. I do not remember exactly for how many times I
visited in India in the year 2009-10. Self stated that on an
average I use to come after about two years. In the year 2011-
12 probably, I visited India twice or thrice, as there was some
dispute regarding apple crop with respect to suit property.
Self stated that this fact was also hidden in the proceedings
before the Assistant Collector II Grade Theog by the
respondent. I come to the suit property during the apple
seasons and whenever I used to visit India. It is correct that in
the year 2011, during apple crop season, I visited Matyana
and I met the respondent personally and asked him to divide
the apple crop as well as the suit property. It is incorrect that
I had quarrel with the respondent Shri Rajinder Sood in the
year 2011. Again stated that we had a quarrel and a police
complaint was filed by the respondent against me with respect
to stealing of the apple crop by me. It is correct that for that
police complaint the proceedings were initiated and it went to
the SDM. My statement was recorded before the SDM. It is
incorrect that in the proceedings before the SDM Theog the
statement of the respondent was also recorded as he was not
present in that hearing. I am not aware any order dated
24.09.2011 in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC before
the SDM Theog. I do know whether any inquiry was being
conducted by the police in that proceedings. I do not have
any idea that the then SDM had marked the inquiry to the
Tehsildar Theog pertaining to the police complaint. It is
correct that to lookafter the Orachard one Gorkha who works
for PWD used to remain in the Orchard. I do not remember
the name of that Gorkha. I met that Gorkha in the Orchard
whenever I used to visit Orchard/suit property. I met him in
the year 2011 alongwith the respondent. It is incorrect that in
the year 2011 I forcibly tried to take away the apple crop in
spite of the resistance from the said Gorkha. It is incorrect
that due to forcibly taking away the apple crop the
proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. registered against
me. I have never read Section 145 Cr.P.C. and I do not know
about the order passed by the SDM Theog in that
proceedings. Self stated that when I asked the Gorkha about
other than 70 boxes of apple I was told by him that the
respondent had already taken them with him. Due to which I
took rest of the 70 boxes with me. It is incorrect that after
holding of inquiry and orders of the SDM the proceedings
were closed. It is correct that statement mark X bears my
signature within red circle RX. It is incorrect that while
making a statement Mark X on 21.09.2011 I disclosed my
resident of VPO Matyana, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P.
and also resident of VPO Amb District Una. Self stated that I
have also disclosed the SDM about my permanent resident of
USA. It is correct that in the appeal No. 3-VIII/15-15 under
Section 14 of the Land Revenue Act filed by me before
SDM/Collector my address have been mentioned as VPO
Matyana, Tehsil Theog, as well as resident of 17, Raelane
Norwalk, CT. 006850-U.S.A. Self stated that the Matayna
address has been mentioned in my appeal because the
respondent has mentioned my Matyana address in the
proceedings. It is incorrect that the respondent has violated
the order of the Hon’ble High Court in any manner. It is also
incorrect that the application for contempt of court is
misconceived. It is incorrect that in order to harass the
respondent the contempt proceedings has been filed against
him falsely as he is in possession of the suit property.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
11th July, 2022
(subhash)
AW2:- Statement of Shri Sunil Kumar, Clerk in the office
of Divisional Commissioner Shimla.
On Oath
11.07.2022
Stated that I have brought the requisition record pertaining to
Case No. 2/2012 titled as Rajinder Kumar versus Om Prakash
and another decided on 13.07.2012 by the Assistant Collector
II Grade Theog. This record has been tagged alongwith the
Revision No. 137 of 2015 pending adjudication before the
Divisional Commissioner Shimla, titled as Rajinder Kumar
versus Om Prakash. As per the record brought by me the
application mark A1 now Ext. AW2/A and order dated
13.07.2012 mark A2 now Ext. AW2/B are correct. (Original
seen and returned).
Xxxxx Cross examination by Shri Neeraj Gupta, Ld. Counsel
for the respondents xxxxx
It is correct that as per the record brought by me today
the appeal against the order dated 13.07.2012 was filed before
the SDM Theog by Shri Om Prakash which was registered as
Case No. 3-VIII/15-15. The said appeal is still pending
adjudication before SDM Theog. It is correct that as per the
record brought by me from Divisional Commissioner Shimla,
Revision Petition instituted by Shri Rajinder Kumar against
Shri Om Prakash pertains to impugned order dated
23.02.2015 in Revenue Appeal No. 3-VIII/15-15.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
11th July, 2022
(subhash)
Om Prakash versus Rajinder Kumar
COPC No. 349 of 2014
11.07.2022
Present :- Shri Gautam Sood Ld. Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Shri Pranjal Nunjal Ld. Counsel for the
respondent.
Statements of Shri Om Prakash and Shri
Sunil Kumar are recorded. The ld. counsel for the
applicant has stated that applicant has moved an
application under order 7 Rule 14 CPC for placing on
record some documents. However, the same is not on
record, due to which the other witness, Shri Narender
Kumar from the office of Tehsildar Amb, present today
could not be examined accordingly he is discharged for
today. The petitioner has paid diet money to the officials
witness present today. Let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders in view of the
application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th July, 2022
(subhash)
Civil Suit No. 31 of 2015
01.08.2022
Present :- Shri Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, vice Shri
Rahul Singh Verma, Advocate, for the
Plaintiff.
Shri Shriyek Sharda, Senior Assistant
Advocate General, for defendant No.1 and
2-State.
Shri Hemant Sharma, Advocate, vice
Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for defendant
No.3.
The matter was listed before learned
Registrar (Vigilance) today. Due to shifting of the
Vigilance Branch, the matter was sent to learned Registrar
(Rules) but due to shifting of the Rules Branch also the
matter was sent to learned Registrar (Administration) for
recording the evidence. As per the note of the learned
Registrar (Administration), he showed his inability to
record the evidence since is busy in convening the
meeting with the Department of Information and
Technology. Accordingly, the matter is taken by the
undersigned.
The learned vice counsel for the plaintiff has
submitted that the original counsel is out of station and as
per his instructions no witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff
are present today. Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff
seeks one more opportunity for leading the evidence on
behalf of the plaintiff.
As per order dated 11.04.2022 of the Hon’ble
Court, last opportunity was given to the plaintiff to lead
its evidence and the presence of the plaintiff’s witnesses
was on self responsibility. Since no witness on behalf of
the plaintiff is present today, therefore, the evidence could
not be recorded. Further, last opportunity was afforded to
the plaintiff to lead evidence, therefore, no extension of
time can be granted by the undersigned for leading
evidence by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st August, 2022
(Pritam)
Meenu Behal versus Biru Ram and others
Civil Suit No. 33 of 2016
03.08.2022
Present: – Shri Chander Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for
the plaintiff.
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate for defendants
No. 1 to 4.
Shri K.R. Kashyap, Advocate for the
respondent No.5.
The ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted
that the OMP No. 693 of 2021 dated 30.11.2021 is still pending
for adjudication whereby the defendant No.5 has prayed for the
permission to re-file the written statement on behalf of the
defendant No.5. The perusal of the case file shows that though
the written statement on behalf of defendant No.5 is on file, but
without the decision of the said application the same cannot be
said to be on record. The ld. Counsel for the defendant No.5
has prayed that the above said application shall be listed in the
Hon’ble Court for its adjudication so that the right of the
defendant No.5 should be protected in the present case. Today
the plaintiff, her husband namely Shri Rajneesh Behal,
Vishwanath Sharma, and Chhabinder Thakur are present,
however, one witness namely Madan Lal Behal is not present
despite his due service.
The Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.5
submitted that in that eventuality, the witnesses, who are
present in the court today could not be examined without the
adjudication of the above said application i.e. OMP No. 693 of
2021 in the present civil suit. The Ld. Counsel has submitted
that the matter be adjourned in the interest of justice. The
opposing counsels have not opposed the prayer of the Ld.
Counsel for defendant No.5. The diet money to the witnesses
has been paid today in cash. In view of the submissions of the
ld. Counsels for the parties, let the matter be listed in the Court
for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd August, 2022
(subhash)
Pancham versus Arun Kumar and another
CMP (M) No. 61 of 2020
In
RSAST No. 28925 of
2019
AW1:- Statement of Shri Rakesh Sharma S/o late Shri
Pancham /o Khajan P/o Sadwan, Tehsil Nurpur, District
Kangra, H.P. age 48 years.
On Oath
04.08.2022
Stated that in the year 2016 my father was suffering
from dementia and during his ill health he died on
25.08.2018. The copy of the death certificate is Ext.
AW-1/A. (Original seen and returned). During the lifetime
of my father, my father never disclosed me, my brothers and
my mother about any pending civil litigation in the courts as
my brothers use to stay away from our native place. After the
death of my father I received a notice on 12.10.2018 from the
Court of Civil Judge Court No.2, Nurpur in an Execution
Petition. Thereafter we went to our advocate Nurpur and
apprised him about the notice. Thereafter our advocate
informed us that a case/civil suit for vacant possession filed
by Shri Arun Kumar against my father has been decreed on
03.08.2013. Our counsel also informed us that thereafter my
father had filed an appeal before the Appellate Court and the
same had also been dismissed on 08.09.2016. Thereafter we
applied for the certified copy of the judgments and decree of
the Court of Civil Judge Nurpur on 10.05.2019 and same was
received by us on 14.05.2019. The certified copy of the
judgment of the Appellate court was found by us in our house
in the box in which my father used to keep the documents.
On finding the certified copy of the Courts we came to know
about the civil litigation going between my father and Shri
Arun. Thereafter we filed the appeal against the judgment
dated 08.09.2016 before the Hon’ble High Court. The delay
in filing the appeal neither intentional nor willful but due to
the above stated reasons.
Xxxxx Cross examination by Ms. Anu Tuli Advocate Ld.
Counsel for the respondents xxxxx
Presently I am unemployed. Self stated that up till 2018
I use to work in a private company at Solan. I have not
brought any authority letter to adduce evidence on behalf of
my brothers. We have not placed on record any medical
record regarding ill health of my father since the year 2016. I
am not aware that except the present litigation another civil
litigation was also going on between my father and Shri Arun.
It is correct that one another RSA bearing No. 308 of 2018
was also pending in the Hon’ble High Court in which I and
my brothers being legal heirs have represented in that case.
It is correct that the said RSA bearing No. 308 of 2018 has
been decided by the Hon’ble High Court on 17.09.2019. It is
incorrect that we have not filed the present appeal within time
intentionally and the same has been filed belatedly in order to
drag the respondent into unnecessary litigation. It is correct
that on 08.09.2016 when the Appellate Court decided the
appeal my father was alive. We have nuclear family. I have
not brought any document today which shows that my family
is separated and stands registered as separate family. I have
brought my Addhar card today. It is correct that the address
on my Addhar card and the memo of the parties of the present
application are same. It is incorrect that I am residing on the
present address for the last 40 years. It is correct that all the
cases were seriously contested by my father in the courts
during his lifetime. At the time of death of my father he was
about 85 years old. It is incorrect that we use to
accompanying him due to his old age to the Courts during the
dates fixed by the Courts. It is correct that we have not
annexed the copies of the CDI forms for applying the certified
copies of the judgments of the Court. I have gone through the
contents of the application before signing the same. It is
incorrect that I am deposing falsely. It is incorrect that just to
harass the respondent I have filed the present application and
appeal.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
4th August, 2022
(subhash)
Pancham versus Arun Kumar and another
CMP (M) No. 61 of 2020
In
RSAST No. 28925 of
2019
Statement of Shri O.C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the
applicants.
Without Oath
04.08.2022
Stated that I do not want to lead any further evidence
and close the evidence on behalf of the applicants.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
4th August, 2022
(subhash)
Pancham versus Arun Kumar and another
CMP (M) No. 61 of 2020
In
RSAST No. 28925 of
2019
04.08.2022
Present: – Shri O.C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the
applicants.
Ms. Anu Tuli, Ld. Counsel for the Non-
applicants
Statement of Shri Rakesh Sharma is recorded.
The ld. Counsel for the applicants vide his separated statement
has closed the evidence on behalf of the applicants. The ld.
Counsel for the respondent has submitted that she also wants to
lead the evidence on behalf of the respondents. Let the steps i.e.
PF, diet money and list of witnesses be filed within 10 days.
Thereafter, the process be issued for the service of RWs.
Let the matter be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date for recording the
evidence of the respondents.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th August, 2022
(subhash)
Prem Singh and ors. Vs. Kanshi Ram and others
CMP No.2831 of 2021 in RSA No.511 of
2016
18.08.2022
Present: – Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Romesh Verma, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate for non-
applicants.
Mr. Himanshu Kapila, Advocate, vice
counsel for proforma respondents.
Statement of S.I Mohar Singh is recorded
today. Learned counsel for the applicant vide his separate
statement has given up Shri Shyam Lal, Head Constable, P.S.
Bilaspur.
The witnesses at Sr.Nos.1 to 3 in the list of
witnesses have already been given up by the learned counsel
for the applicants as per the Hon’ble Court’s order dated
19.4.2022. As per report, AW4 namely Rajinder is duly served,
but he did not put his appearance for adducing his evidence.
Let the bailable warrants to the tune of Rs.500/- be issued
against the witness at Sr.No.4, mentioned in the list of
witnesses, returnable for 12.10.2022.
Let the case be listed for remaining AWs on
12.10.2022.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th August, 2022
(mamta)
Master Abeer Singh v Smt. Savita Sharma and
others
Civil Suit No. . 27 of 2018
31.08.2022
Present: – Mr. Rohit, learned vice counsel for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Karun Negi, learned counsel for
defendants No. 1 to 5 and 9 to 11.
Mr. Parikshit, learned vice for defendants
No. 6 and 7.
Mr. Sunil Dutt Gautam learned vice counsel
for defendant No.8
None for , proforma defendants No. 12 and
13/State.
As per report, the summons could not be
issued to the witnesses for today as the process fee has been
filed on 27.08.2022. Now the process fee has been filed. Let
the case be listed before Additional Registrar (Judicial) for
fixing the date of plaintiff’s evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2022
(Pritam)
Tushar Vashisht vs Satish Kumar Vashisht &
Others a/w connected matter.
Civil Suit No. 45 of 2017 a/w C.S. No.
4 of 2019
07.09.2022 C.S. No. 45 of 2017
Present: – Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate, vice Mr. Abhishek
Banta, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.
Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for defendants
No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate, for defendant
No. 3.
C.S. No. 4 of 2019
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.
Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate, vice Mr. Abhishek
Banta, Advocate, for defendants No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.
Rajeev Chauhan, Advocate, for defendant
No. 3.
As per the report, the summons for the
plaintiff’s evidence for today i.e. 7.9.2022 could not be issued
as the steps in this regard have not been taken by the plaintiff.
Mr. Khem Raj, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has submitted
that they have filed the list of witnesses yesterday. However,
the perusal of the record shows that the same is not on record.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Khem Raj has
submitted that the PF and diet money will be filed within one
week for summoning the witnesses. He seeks one more
opportunity to do the needful. In view of the submission of the
learned counsel for the plaintiff, one more opportunity is
granted for doing the needful. Let the steps i.e. PF and diet
money be filed within one week and thereafter process be
issued for the service of the PWs. Let the case be listed before
the Additional Registrar for fixing the date of plaintiff’s
evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th September, 2022
(vs)
Smt. Ganga Devi since deceased through
her LRs vs. Smt. Himachali & ors.
C.S. No. 42 of 2018
PW-1:- Statement of Sh. Mohinder Lal, Reader to
Tehsildar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
On Oath
12.09.2022
Stated that I am posted as Reader to Tehsildar,
Mandi from December, 2019. I have brought the requisitioned
record i.e. registered Will of Smt. Ganga Devi, which has
been registered on registration number 17/2014, dated
27.01.2014. The Will is Ext. PW1/A (five leaves) (Objected
to on the mode of proof). Ext.PW1/A is as per my record.
(Original seen and returned).
Xxxxxxx Cross examination by Shri Sunil Chauhan,
Advocate, for the defendants.
This will was not executed and registered in my
presence. It is correct that first three leaves of Ext.PW1/A are
original, whereas the 4th and 5th page of Ext.PW1/A are the
photocopies of the attested copy. It is correct that 4 th and 5th
page i.e. Will is not a certified copy from the original. It is
correct that the certified copy is issued only after comparing it
with the original.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
12th September, 2022
(vs)
Smt. Ganga Devi since deceased through her LRs vs.
Smt. Himachali & ors.
C.S. No. 42 of 2018
PW-2:- Statement of Sh. Subhash Chand, Clerk from
DC office, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
On Oath
12.09.2022
Stated that I have been deployed from the SDM
office, Mandi to produce the record today vide Authority
letter, Ext.P-2. I have brought the requisitioned record i.e.
case file pertaining to case No. 77 of 1991 of the proceedings
before Land Acquisition Collector, Beas Satluj Link Project.
The certified copy of the said file is Ext.PW2/A, having pages
from 1 to 32 (Original seen and returned).
Xxxxxxx Cross examination by Shri Sunil Chauhan,
Advocate, for the defendants.
I do not have any personal knowledge about the
contents of the above said requisitioned record. It is correct
that I never remained in the SDM-cum-LAO, office Mandi. I
do not know that whose land was acquired under that
proceedings.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
12th September, 2022
(vs)
Smt. Ganga Devi since deceased through her LRs
vs. Smt. Himachali & ors.
Civil Suit No. 42 of 2018
12.09.2022
Present: – Mr. Varun Chauhan, vice Mr. Vivek Sharka,
Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocates, for the
defendants.
The learned vice counsel for the plaintiff have
submitted that due to ill health the plaintiff, he could not come
today to adduce his evidence. As per Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC,
it is the mandate of the law that the plaintiff shall be examined
at the first instance before any other witness could be
examined. However, the learned vice counsel for the plaintiff
have submitted that the witnesses which are req uired to be
examined today are only official witnesses. The learned
counsel for the defendants have submitted that since the official
witnesses are to be examined today, therefore, he does not have
any objection in case they are examined before the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the official witnesses i.e. Shri Mohinder Lal and
Shri Subhash Chand are examined today. The learned vice
counsel for the plaintiff have submitted that he will bring the
plaintiff on the next date on his own responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar(Judicial) for recording the remaining plaintiff’s
witnesses.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th September, 2022
(vs)
Bimla Devi vs. Savita Devi & Anr.
COPC No. 190 of 2019
13.09.2022
Present: – Ms. Salochana Rana, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the
respondents.
The learned counsel for the parties vide their
separate statements have stated that there are chances of
amicable settlement between the parties and it will be a futile
exercise to record the evidence at this stage. Keeping in view
the statements of the learned counsel for the parties, let the
matter may be listed in the Court at the earliest and preferably
within fortnight. The witness i.e. Smt. Bimla Devi, who is
present today is deferred for the abovesaid reason.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th September, 2022
(vs)
Bimla Devi vs. Savita Devi & Anr.
COPC No. 190 of 2019
Statement of Ms. Salochna Kaundal, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Without oath
13.09.2022
Stated that the offer for amicable settlement has
not been opposed by me and the same is accepted to my
client.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
13th September, 2022
(vs)
Bimla Devi vs. Savita Devi & Anr.
COPC No. 190 of 2019
Statement of Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the
respondents/contemnors.
Without oath
13.09.2022
Stated that as per the instructions from my clients
they are ready to settle the matter amicably and it may be
listed in the Court for settlement of the dispute.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
13th September, 2022
(vs)
Jagdish Chand (since deceased ) through LRs
Varun Rana & Anr. Vs. Vinod Shandel
Civil Suit No. 66 of 2015
16.09.2022
PW-1:- Statement of Sh. Varun Rana s/o late Sh. Jagdish
Singh Rana, r/o Dayal House, near IGMC Boys
Hostel, Sanjauli, Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
16.09.2022
Stated that my father had entered into an
agreement to purchase at village and mauja Chamyana,
Kamlanagar, Bhatakufar with Shri Vinod Shandel, defendant
on 25.11.2012. The total amount of the consideration for the
purchase of flat was Rs. 62,00,000/- (Rupees sixty two lac).
The agreement to sell is Ext.PW1/A. My father had paid an
earnest money amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- (rupees eleven
lac) for the purchase of said flat to the defendant. The detail
of the payment of the earnest money is already mentioned in
para-5 of the agreement to sell Ext.PW1/A. Due to the ill
health of my father, there was some delay in the payment of
second installment amounting to Rs. 24,00,000/- (rupees
twenty four lac), however, the same could not paid
subsequently. Thereafter my father and myself tried to
contact the defendant but he did not respond. Thereafter the
defendant send a termination letter Ext.PW1/B to my father
through registered letter which was received at about
30.5.2013. After receiving the termination letter from the
defendant, me and my father personally visited the defendant.
My father was ready and willing to execute the sale deed after
payment of the balance amount, however, the defendant was
reluctant and he straightway refuse to execute the sale deed.
He also told that our earnest money has been forfeited in lieu
of the agreement. Thereafter my father gave notice
Ext.PW1/C through our counsel to the defendant for the
execution of the sale deed through registered post. The postal
receipt and acknowledgement are Ext.PW1/D and
Ext.PW1/E, respectively.
Jagdish Chand (since deceased ) through LRs
Varun Rana & Anr. Vs. Vinod Shandel
Civil Suit No. 66 of 2015
My father and me was/is always ready and willing to pay the
balance amount and to execute the sale deed but the defendant
has not executed the sale deed till date nor refunded the
earnest money. Subsequently it came to our knowledge that
the defendant had already sold the said flat to somebody else.
Xxxxxxx Cross examination by Shri Naresh Gupta,
Advocate, for the defendant.
It is correct that agreement to sell Mark ‘X’ bears
my father signature in red circle Ext.PW1/F. It is incorrect
that my father had cancelled the agreement to sell on 5.3.2013
(objected to on the ground of late production and beyond
pleadings). It is incorrect that my father had put his signature
on Mark ‘X’ in lieu of the cancellation of the said agreement
to sell. It is incorrect that my father had also put his signature
on the last page of the agreement Mark ‘X’ in lieu of the
cancellation of the said agreement to sell. It is incorrect that
after cancellation of the so called agreement to sell Mark ‘X’
the same was handed over to defendant by my father. It is
incorrect that the first cheque which was issued by my father
to the defendant in lieu of the purchase of the said flat was
also dishonoured (object to on the ground that this question is
beyond pleadings). It is incorrect that the defendant informed
the dishonouring of the cheque to my father and thereafter it
was subsequently honoured. So far as I remember the last
payment in lieu of the agreement was to be made by my father
by July 2013. It is incorrect that my father was not having
money for payment of balance consideration till 25.7.2013.
Self stated that he was possessing sufficient money to be
made to defendant
Jagdish Chand (since deceased ) through LRs
Varun Rana & Anr. Vs. Vinod Shandel
Civil Suit No. 66 of 2015
and for execution of the sale deed. It is incorrect that since
my father was not paying the balance consideration due to
which Ext.PW1/B was issued by the defendant. It is correct
that the reply to the notice Ext.D-1 was issued by the
defendant to my father. It is incorrect that after the receipt of
the Ext.D-1 we did not made any efforts to pay the balance
consideration and to execute the sale deed. It is incorrect that
my father was never ready and willing to pay the balance
consideration as he was not having sufficient money for the
said purpose. It is incorrect that I am deposing false.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
16th September, 2022
(vs)
Jagdish Chand (since deceased ) through LRs
Varun Rana & Anr. Vs. Vinod Shandel
Civil Suit No. 66 of 2015
Statement of Sh. B.S. Attri, learned counsel for
the plaintiff.
Without Oath
16.09.2022
Stated that I do not want to examine PW Dev Raj
Kashyap, Senior Associate SBI Secretariat Branch, Shimla
and PW Shri Naresh Gupta, Advocate and close the evidence
on behalf of the plaintiffs.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
16th September, 2022
(vs)
Jagdish Chand (since deceased ) through LRs
Varun Rana & Anr. Vs. Vinod Shandel
Civil Suit No. 66 of 2015
16.09.2022
Present: – Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Naresh Gupta, Advocate, for the
defendant.
Statement of plaintiff Shri Varun Rana is
recorded. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs vide his
separate statement has given up Shri Naresh Gupta, Advocate
and Shri Dev Raj Kashyap, Senior Associate, SBI and close the
evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Let the steps be taken for summoning the
defendant’s witness within 15 days and the matter be listed
before the Additional Registrar(Judicial) for fixing a date for
recording the defendant’s evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
16th September, 2022
(vs)
Nikka Ram (Since deceased) through his LRs vs.
Luder Chand (since deceased) through Ganga
Devi & Ors.
CMP No. 7507 of
2015 in RFA No.
317 of 2008
23.09.2022
Present: – Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate, for
the applicants.
Mr. Shorya Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Tara
Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
respondents.
The learned counsel for the applicants has
stated that he has filed the power of attorney on behalf of the
applicants today in the Registry of this Court. The learned
counsel for the applicants further vide his separate statement
has stated that the contemnor i.e. Kumari Uma Devi had
already expired, who has breached the order of the Hon’ble
Court, due to which the contempt proceedings are not required
to be pursued further by the applicants.
Shri R.S. Verma, Advocate duly appointed as
Local Commissioner in the present contempt proceedings, Om
Prakash and applicant Prem Chand, (one of the applicant) are
present in the court for adducing their evidence. However, due
to the statement of the learned counsel for the applicants, they
are not required to be examined, accordingly, all the witnesses
are discharged.
Let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate direction in view of the statement made by the learned
counsel for the applicants.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd September, 2022
(vs)
Nikka Ram (Since deceased) through his LRs vs.
Luder Chand (since deceased) through Ganga
Devi & Ors.
CMP No. 7507 of
2015 in RFA No.
317 of 2008
Statement of Sh. Gurinder Singh Parmar, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Without Oath
23.09.2022
Stated that the contemnor i.e. Kumari Uma Devi
had already expired, who has breached the order of the Hon’ble
Court, due to which the applicants do not want to pursue the
present contempt proceedings and also do not want to examine
the witnesses present today.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
23rd September, 2022
(vs)
Civil Suit 113 of
2011
11.10.2022
Present: – Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate for defendant,
namely Mira Bindra.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for defendants,
namely Surjit Kaur, Udaibir Singh Sodhi,
Sukhbir Singh,Kumari Manreet Kaur and
Manbir Singh.
Shri S.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Arvind Negi, Advocate for defendants
namely Abma Parsad Kalia and Sanjiv
Kumar Kalia.
Statement of PW-1 Shri Joginder Lal, is recorded.
Shri Padam Parkash Sharma, Kanungo from the
Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, Shimla Govt. of
Himachal Pradesh, is present today but he has submitted
that he has not brought the entire record requisitioned
today inadvertently. Due to non-availability of the record
today with the concerned witness, he could not be
examined, accordingly, he is discharged for today.
As per the report of the concerned Dealing
Assistant, the witness at Sr. No.4, is served, however, he
did not put his appearance for adducing his evidence. Let
the bailable warrants to the tune of Rs.1000/- with one
surety in the like amount be issued against him. Fresh
summons be issued for service of the witness at Sr. No.4
and the witness at Sr. No.1 be also summoned for the date
which is to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
From the perusal of record, it appears that there is
some mistake in the amended memo of parties, hence the
matter first be listed in the Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th October, 2022
(Pritam)
PW-1: Statement of Sh. Joginder Lal, Senior
Assistant, Record Room, High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
On
Oath
11.10.2022
Stated that I have brought the summoned
record of CWP No. 6304 of 2011. Ex. PW/A is the
certified copy of the above said Writ Petition (original
record seen and returned).
xxxxx By Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Shri Ajit Jaswal, Advocate for
defendant, namely Mira Bindra.
As per record, the above said writ petition
was dismissed on 08.03.2017.
xxxxx By Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for
defendants namely Surjit Kaur, Udaibir Singh Sodhi,
Sukhbir Singh, Manreet Kaur and Manbir Singh.
Opportunity given-nil.
xxxxx By Mr. S.C. Sharma, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate for
defendants, namely Abma Parsad Kalia and Sanjiv
Kumar Kalia.
Opportunity given-nil.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
11th October, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
AW-2: Statement of Sh. Rohit S/o Shri Naresh
Kumar, Village Tadoli, P.O. Saru, Pargana
Udaipur, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P.
On
Oath
14.10.2022
Stated that I am permanent resident of above
stated address. Both the parties to this lis are
personally known to me. On 04.11.2019, at about 7-8
a.m., I was going to buy the milk from the market.
When I reached near to the house of Kaushlya Devi,
then I saw that some verbal wrangle was going on
between the family of Kaushlya Devi and Ashok
Kumar. I heard that Ashok Kumar was requesting
Kaushlya Devi to stop the construction work, which
was going on the spot as she herself has taken the stay
from the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. I
am aware about the cause of dispute between the
above said parties. Both the parties have land dispute.
Both the Courts below at Chamba had given the
judgment in favour of the father of Ashok Kumar,
namely Dumnu Ram. Inspite of the request by Ashok
Kumar to stop the construction work by Kaushlya
Devi, she did not adhered to the request of Ashok
Kumar and told Ashok Kumar that she can do
whatever and she did not bother about the stay from
the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Kaushlya Devi was fixing railing on the disputed
lental and was laying the lental on
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
the empty land adjacent to the road. At that time Shri
Bal Krishan, Anirudh and Tushar Sharma (son of
Ashok) were also present. On the spot Tushar
Sharma clicked the photographs on that day, which are
marked as A-2 to A-6. Kaushlya did not stop the work
on the spot, however, on the next day Ashok Kumar
told me that he had lodged a Rapat in Daradha Police
Post. Three sons of Kaushlya Devi are serving in
Indian Army.
xxxxx By Shri Ajay Sood, Senior Advocate
with Shri Rohit, Advocate for respondent/non-
applicant.
Stated that I am working as labourer at my
native place. I was told by Ashok Kumar that his
Khasra No. 1133 and adjacent Kharaa No. also
belongs to him. I am not aware about the Khasra
Number of my house.
Today, I have come to Shimla with Ashok Kumar.
Again stated that my house is on Khasra No.
1199/1200. I have not brought any proof regarding
Khasra Number of my house. I have not read the
documents pertaining to the case of the parties. As per
my knowledge the Hon’ble High Court has granted
status quo order since 2016. I am not aware the month
and the year in which Kaushlya Devi had filed the
appeal in the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh. I am not aware that an FIR was registered
against Ashok Kumar with respect to the quarrel
which had taken place on that day. I am also not
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
aware that one criminal case is pending adjudication at
Chamba Court against Ashok Kumar pertaining to that
quarrel. The lental which is visible in photographs
mark A-2 to A-6 about 8 to 10 years old. I am not
aware as to how old the house which is visible in the
photograph. The railing on the lental was fixed by
Kaushlya Devi on 04.11.2019. I am not aware about
the Khasra No. on which the construction appears to
have been done in photographs mark A-3. The
additional lental adjacent to the road is about 5-6
feets. I am graduate. I am not aware the date on
which the Dussehra and Diwali festivals fell in the
year 2019. It is correct that I have visiting terms in the
house of Ashok Kumar but Ashok Kumar did not
disclosed about the FIR against him qua that quarrel. I
cannot say that the house of Kaushlya Devi had been
constructed in the year 2000. It is correct
that the house of Kaushlya is adjacent to the road. It
is correct that the people can come on the lental from
the road to the house of Kaushlya Devi. It is correct
that she had affixed the railing to prevent the general
public from coming on to the lental.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
14th October, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
Statement of Sh. Karan Sharma, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Without Oath
14.10.2022
Stated that I do not want to examine Shri
Anirudh Kumar, being repetitive in nature and given
him up.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
14th October, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
14.10.2022
Present: – Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for the non-applicant.
Statement of Shri Rohit as AW-2, is recorded.
Learned counsel for the applicant vide his separate
statement has given up AW-3, namely Shri Anirudh,
present in the Court today.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
he wants adduce some additional evidence for which he
will move the appropriate application before the Court.
Let the matter be listed in the Court for appropriate
orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th October, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 14 of 2009 a/w Civil Suit Nos. 98
and 116 of 2008, 13 and 29 of 2009.
20.10.2022 Civil Suit No. 116 of 2008
Present: – Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the
plaintiffs.
Shri Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
defendant No. 1 and 2
Shri Bhisham Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.
Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate, for
defendant No. 3 and 4.
Shri Paras Dhaulta, Advocate, vice Mr. Sunil
Mohan Goel, for defendant No.5.
Civil Suit No. 13 of 2019
Mr. M.S. Katoch, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
defendant No. 1, 2 and 5.
Shri Bhisham Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.
Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate for
defendants No. 3 and 4.
Shri Paras Dhaulta, Advocate, vice Mr. Sunil
Mohan Goel, Advocate, for defendant No.6.
None for defendant No.7.
Civil Suit No. 29 of 2009
Mr. M.S. Katoch, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
defendant No. 1, 2 and 5.
Shri Bhisham Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.
Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate for
defendants No. 3 and 4.
Shri Paras Dhaulta, Advocate, vice Mr. Sunil
Mohan Goel, for defendant No.6.
Civil Suit No. 98 of 2008
Mr. M.S. Katoch, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
defendant No. 1, 2 and 5.
Shri Bhisham Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.
Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate, for
defendants No. 3 and 4.
Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate, for defendant
No.6.
Shri Paras Dhaulta, Advocate, vice Mr. Sunil
Mohan Goel, for defendant No.7.
Civil Suit No. 14 of 2009
Mr. M.S. Katoch, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
defendant No. 1, 2 and 5
Shri Bhisham Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.
Inder Jeet Singh Narwal, Advocate, for
defendants No. 3 and 4.
Shri Paras Dhaulta, Advocate, vice Mr. Sunil
Mohan Goel, for defendant No.6.
As per office report steps for summoning DWs have
not been taken due to which summons could not be issued
to the DWs. Learned Law Officer representing the State
of Himachal Pradesh, seeks opportunity to do the needful
for the service of defendants witnesse’s. Accordingly, one
more opportunity is granted in the interest of justice.
Let the steps be taken within three weeks,
thereafter process be issued for the service of DWs
returnable for the date fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th October, 2022
(Pritam)
COMS No. 13 of 2019
27.10.2022 Present:
Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Ms. Jyoti Dogra, Advocate vice Mr. Vijender
Katoch for defendants.
As per office report the summons issued for
service of PW-1 to PW-3, are still awaited. No PWs are
present today.
Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted
that the original counsel has to come from Delhi for cross
examination of the witnesses. Therefore, she seeks
adjournment for today.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has not objected to
the requested of learned counsel for the defendant.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he will
produce the plaintiff for adducing his evidence on the next
date of hearing on self responsibility. Since the summons
issued for the service of PW-1 to PW-3 are still awaited,
therefore, let fresh summons be issued for their service on
old PF on the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th October, 2022
(Pritam)Civil Suit No. 28 of 2014
PW-5: Statement of Sh. Ishwar Singh S/o Smt.
Sundru Devi D/o Late Shri Sidhu Khalwara,
aged about 80 years R/o village Bagla, P.o.
Barsu, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
On
Oath
02.11.2022Stated that I am agriculturist by occupation. Late
Shri Sidhu Khalwara was my maternal father (Nana
ji). He was Freedom Fighter. The land of my Nana ji,
was confiscated by the British Government since he
was Freedom Fighter and after Independence,
Government was asked either to handover the said
land or to provide compensation to my Nana Ji. On
my mother being legal heir of my Nana Ji, they asked
from the Government for return of the land. However,
government has not provided the land or the
compensation. Therefore, my mother and my massi
(Laxmi Devi) being legal heirs of my my Nani Ji,
were constrained to file a Civil Suit No. 27 of 1998, in
the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge Mandi, which
was decided on 05.03.2003, whereby the suit for
declaration and mandatory injunction was decreed by
the Court. The certified copy of the judgment dated
05.03.2003 is Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, the said
judgment Ex. PW5/A was challenged by the State
Government before the
-2-
appellate Court and vide judgment dated 07.10.2004,
the said appeal was dismissed. Certified copy of the
said judgment of the appellate Court is Ex.PW5/B.
The judgment PW5/B of the appellate Court was again
challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. by
way of Regular Second Appeal No. 5 of 2005, which
was also dismissed on 29.09.2008. Certified copy of
judgment in RSA No. 5 of 2005, is Ex.PW5/C. Upon
filing of the Execution Petition before the learned trial
Court, the State Government has provided only a
compensation for an amount of Rs.43,90,768/- to the
decree holders and balance amount of Rs.17,80,611/-
has been ordered to be refunded in favour of the State
Government. The order in the Execution Petition was
assailed before the Hon’ble High Court by way of
CMPMO No. 138 of 2011, and vide order dated
25.08.2011, the Hon’ble High Court disposed the said
petition by observing that the plaintiffs shall file
separate suit for quantification of the market value of
the said land of those Mohals. The certified copy of
the order dated 25.08.2011, in CMPMO No. 138 of
2011, is Ex. PW5/D. Thereafter, in compliance to
order in CMPMO No. 138 of 2011, the plaintiff filed
the present Civil Suit for quantification and
accordingly, the market value of the land in question
of those Mohals. The copy of award passed for the
adjoining land is also appended
-3-
alongwith the present suit. Copy of market value of
Mohal Bharol, for the year 2008-2009, is Ex.PW4/A
and the copy of the market value of Mohal Palyani for
the year 2008-2009, is Ex.PW4/B. I have also placed
on record the copy of market value of Mohal Daundhi
for the year 2008-2009, is Ex. PW4/C. Copy of the
market value of Mohal Nagchala for the year 2008-
2009, is Ex PW3/A. Certified copy of the market
value of Mohla Daundhi, for the year 2002-2003, is
Ex.PW2/A. Market value of Mohal Bharol for the
year 2002-2003, is Ex.PW2/B and market value of
Mohal Palyani for the year 2002-2003, Ex. PW2/C.
The market value of Mohal Bagla for the year 2002-
2003, is Ex.PW2/D. Copy of market value for the
Mohal Nagchala for the year 2002-2003, is Ex.
PW1/A. I have also annexed the copy of award
passed by Land Acquisition Officer (NHAI), Bilaspur,
dated 05.07.2013, for village Nagchala, Hadbast No.
219, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, which is Ex PW5/E,
for the comparison/ quantification of the similarly
situated land. I have also appended the photocopy of
the circle rates of land for the period 01.04.2014 to
31.03.2015, which also includes Mohals Bagla,
Bharol, Nagchala and Palyani and the copy of the
same is Mark P. Photocopy of the enhanced ex-gratia
relief for death or damaged residential/ industrial
properties during 1984 riots for Mandi district
-4-
has also been annexed as Mark P1 for the
comparison/ quantification of the land.
The compensation granted in lieu of the
acquisition of the land to us is less in comparison to
the lands acquired in the similarly situated Mohals
during that period.
xxxxx By Shriayek Sharda, Senior Assistant
Advocate General for defendants.
Stated that I have not annexed any
document pertaining to prove the fact that my Nana Ji
was Freedom Fighter. I have obtained the copies of
the market value from the concerned department. It is
incorrect that I have been duly compensated on
account of the then market value of the land. It is
incorrect that due to the subsequent inflation of the
prices of the land in that Mohals, I have filed a false
case to grave more compensation. Self stated that I
have filed the present suit in compliance of the
direction in CMPMO No. 138 of 2011. It is incorrect
that I am deposing falsely.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
2nd November, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 28 of 2014
Statement of Ms. Nishi Goel, learned
counsel for the plaintiffs.
Without Oath
02.11.2022
Stated that I do not want to examine the other
plaintiff Smt. Laxmi Devi, being repetitive in nature. I
also close the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
2nd November, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit 28 of 2014
02.11.2022 Present:
Mr. Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for the
plaintiffs.
Mr. Shreyak Sharda, Senior Assistant
Advocate General for the defendants.
Statement of Shri Ishwar Singh (Plaintiff) isrecord. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs vide her separate
statement has given up the other plaintiff Smt. Laxmi Devi
and close the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Learned Senior Assistant Advocate General, seeks
time to take steps for defendants evidence. Let the same
be taken within three weeks. Thereafter, the matter be
listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for the
fixing the date of defendants evidence.
The perusal of the case file shows that a suit for
recovery of Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen crores) has
been filed by the plaintiffs, however, the order dated
02.01.2015, shows that while framing of issue No.1, an
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs) has been
written inadvertently due to typographical mistake.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the
correction is required to be made in the issue No.1.
Civil Suit 28 of 2014
Therefore, let the matter be listed in the Court for
appropriate orders within a week.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th October, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
DW-1: Statement of Sh. B.S. Kapoor, Regional
Manager (Retd.), The New India Insurance
Company, R/o Village Badah, P.O. Mohal,
Tehsil & District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
On
Oath
28.11.2022
In the year 2011-2012, I was working as
Senior Branch Manager, Kullu. The plaintiff has
taken the Insurance pertaining to their Hydro Electric
Power Project from the defendants, which was valid
w.e.f. 04.03.2012 to 03.03.2013. The same are Ex.
PW1/B to PW1/E. During the validity of the above
said Insurance Polices, due to massive rock/land slide,
the plaintiff company sustained loss. Due to the loss,
the plaintiffs raised their claim before the Insurance
Company and the Branch Office at Kullu of the
Insurance Company forwarded the claim of the
plaintiff to Regional Office at Chandigarh for deputing
the Surveyors to assess the loss of the plaintiff/
Company. Thereafter, the Head Office of the
Insurance Company appointed two Surveyors to assess
the loss of the plaintiff. Thereafter, concerned
surveyor submitted their reports before the Head
Office.
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
xxxxx By Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate for
the Plaintiff.
I am not aware about the outcome of the
reports of the Surveyors.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
28th November, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
DW-2: Statement of Sh. Pramod Kumar,
Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional
Office Hamirpur.
On oath
28.11.2022
In the year 2013, I was posted as Branch
Manager, Branch Office Kullu. The loss of the
plaintiff were assessed by the independent
professional Surveyors of the Company duly
authorized and licensed by Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority of India. There were two
losses reported under Slandered Fire and Special Peril
policy and business interruptions (fire loss of profit
policy). The loss under Slandered Fire and Special
Peril Policy was processed and settled as per the
recommendation and assessment independent
professional Surveyor firm namely Marulkar &
Company and loss reported under Fire Loss Profit
policy was processed and settled as per the
recommendation and assessment of independent
professional Surveyor firm M/s S. Soni & Company.
Further, the losses were
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
assessed and recommended as per policy terms and
condition, scope and coverage. The Insurance
Company fully agreed with their assessment and
recommendation. The final Surveyor report of S. Soni
and Company is Ex. DW2/A (27 leaves). Thereafter,
addendum report was filed by the Surveyor S. Soni &
Company. The final Survey report Ex. DW2/B, was
filed by Marulkar & Company qua the loss sustained
by the plaintiff (23 leaves).
xxxxx By Shri Ajay Vaidya, learned Advocate
for plaintiff.
I am working in the New India Insurance
Co. since July 2005. My education qualification is
B.E. in Computer Sciences and diploma in Fellowship
in General Insurance. Today, I have not brought any
record pertaining to this case. I have gone through the
reports submitted by the Surveyor qua the loss
sustained by the plaintiff. I do not remember the exact
claim of the plaintiff, which was submitted before the
Insurance
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
Company. Self stated that the loss was not happened
to the plaintiff during my tenure as Branch Manager
Kullu. I do not remember the exact amount assessed
by the Surveyor, however, it was about One Crore
Seventeen Lacs for the loss under Slandered Fire and
Special Peril Policy and about 78 lacs for the loss
under Fire Loss of Profit Policy. I do not remember
what was the indemnity period in that Insurance
Policy. Self stated that I do not remember the
indemnity period which was allowed by the Surveyor
in his report since the claim was settled eight years
back. After completion of the stage one deployment,
the plaintiff have achieved the optimum production as
per the Surveyor report. I do not remember the date
and moth on which the Plaintiff Company had
obtained the optimum production. I have not seen any
addendum report in the documents filed by the
defendants. However, the same has been placed on
record by the plaintiff itself as Ex. PW1/H. I have
also gone through the addendum report Ex. PW1/H at
the
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
time of processing of the claim. In the addendum
report the Surveyor had assessed an amount about Rs.
5,30,000/-. It is incorrect that I am deposing false and
without any basis.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
28th November, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit 27 of 2016
28.11.2022 Present:-
Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with
Shri Amit Himalvi, Advocate for the
defendants.
Statement of Shri B.S. Kapoor and Pramod
Kumar are recorded. Learned counsel for the defendants
has submitted that the process be issued for the services of
remaining DWs. The learned counsel for the defendants
have submitted vide his separate statement that he do not
want to examine DW mentioned at Sl. No.4, namely Shri
Harjeet Singh, Senior Divisional Manager New India
Insurance Company.
Let the steps be taken within a week,
thereafter process be issued for the service of the DW at
Sl. Nos. 3, mentioned in the list of witnesses on the date
to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th November, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016Statement of Shri Amit Himalvi, learned counsel
for the defendants.
Without Oath
28.11.2022Stated that the defendants do not want to
examine witness Shri Harjeet Singh, mentioned at Sl.
No.4, of the list of witness and give him up.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th November, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit 47 of 2009
30.11.2022 Present:
Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Shri
Rohit for the plaintiff.
Shri Pranjal Munjal, learned vice counsel for
defendant No.1.
Shri Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate with Shri
Khem Raj, Advocate for defendant No.2.
Learned vice counsel for defendant No.1, has
submitted that Mr. Parveen Garg, Director of the
Company i.e. defendant No.1, is not present as he was
informed by the learned counsel for defendant No.1, that
he will not be available today in the Court due to some
personal reasons. Learned vice counsel seeks
adjournment. The request of the learned vice counsel for
the defendant No.1, is not opposed by the learned counsel
for the opposite parties.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of evidence of
defendant No.1. Additional Registrar (Judicial) is
requested to fix short date as the evidence of defendant
No. l, is prolonged for one reason or the other from the
year 2014.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
30th November, 2022
(Pritam)
RSA No, 149 of 2016
08.12.2022 Present:
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
applicant/appellant.
Shri Rahul Singh Verma, learned vice
counsel for respondents No.1 to 10.
None for the respondents-State.
As per office report, steps i.e., process fee, list
of witnesses, road and diet money have not been filed by
the applicant/appellant. Learned counsel for the applicant/
appellant seeks more time for taking the steps.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen days
positively and the matter be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of evidence of the
applicant/appellant.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th December, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP(M) 1631 of 2019
09.12.2022 Present:
Shri Dibender Gosh, Advocate, vice Shri
Parmod Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant.
Ms. Tanu Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr.
R.R. Rahi, Advocate, respondents No.1 to 5.
Shri Virender Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr.
Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for respondents
No. 6 and 7.
As per office report, steps for evidence on
behalf of respondents No. 6 and 7, has not been taken.
Learned vice counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7, seeks
some more time for taking the steps.
Let steps be taken within fifteen days.
Thereafter, the matter be listed before Additional Registrar
(Judicial) for fixing the date of evidence on behalf of
respondents No. 6 and 7.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th December, 2022
(Pritam)
COMS No. 6 of 2019PW-1: Statement of Sh. Pramod Kumar,
Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional
Office Hamirpur.
On oath
12.12.2022In the year 2013, I was posted as Branch
Manager, Branch Office Kullu. The loss of the
plaintiff were assessed by the independent
professional Surveyors of the Company duly
authorized and licensed by Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority of India. There were two
losses reported under Slandered Fire and Special Peril
policy and business interruptions (fire loss of profit
policy). The loss under Slandered Fire and Special
Peril Policy was processed and settled as per the
recommendation and assessment independent
professional Surveyor firm namely Marulkar &
Company and loss reported under Fire Loss Profit
policy was processed and settled as per the
recommendation and assessment of independent
professional Surveyor firm M/s S. Soni & Company.
Further, the losses were
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
assessed and recommended as per policy terms and
condition, scope and coverage. The Insurance
Company fully agreed with their assessment and
recommendation. The final Surveyor report of S. Soni
and Company is Ex. DW2/A (27 leaves). Thereafter,
addendum report was filed by the Surveyor S. Soni &
Company. The final Survey report Ex. DW2/B, was
filed by Marulkar & Company qua the loss sustained
by the plaintiff (23 leaves).
xxxxx By Shri Ajay Vaidya, learned Advocate
for plaintiff.
I am working in the New India Insurance
Co. since July 2005. My education qualification is
B.E. in Computer Sciences and diploma in Fellowship
in General Insurance. Today, I have not brought any
record pertaining to this case. I have gone through the
reports submitted by the Surveyor qua the loss
sustained by the plaintiff. I do not remember the exact
claim of the plaintiff, which was submitted before the
Insurance
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
Company. Self stated that the loss was not happened
to the plaintiff during my tenure as Branch Manager
Kullu. I do not remember the exact amount assessed
by the Surveyor, however, it was about One Crore
Seventeen Lacs for the loss under Slandered Fire and
Special Peril Policy and about 78 lacs for the loss
under Fire Loss of Profit Policy. I do not remember
what was the indemnity period in that Insurance
Policy. Self stated that I do not remember the
indemnity period which was allowed by the Surveyor
in his report since the claim was settled eight years
back. After completion of the stage one deployment,
the plaintiff have achieved the optimum production as
per the Surveyor report. I do not remember the date
and moth on which the Plaintiff Company had
obtained the optimum production. I have not seen any
addendum report in the documents filed by the
defendants. However, the same has been placed on
record by the plaintiff itself as Ex. PW1/H. I have
also gone through the addendum report Ex. PW1/H at
the
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
time of processing of the claim. In the addendum
report the Surveyor had assessed an amount about Rs.
5,30,000/-. It is incorrect that I am deposing false and
without any basis.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar
(Judicial)
12th December, 2022
(Pritam)
COMS No. 6 of 2019
12.12.2022 Present:
Shri Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Shri Karan Sharma, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Shri Debinder Gosh, Advocate, for the
defendants.
As per office report, summons issued to PW-
1 in the list of witnesses has been received back with
effective service, however, none appeared despite effective
service of PW-1. The summons issued to PW-2 and 3, are
still awaited. The plaintiff and her GPA are present in
person today.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
firstly he wants to examine the official witnesses, which
are mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 9, in the list of witnesses
before examination of the plaintiff and her GPA.
Learned counsel for the defendant has raised the
objection that the case is to be opened either by the
plaintiff or by her GPA and the other witnesses cannot be
examined without the examination of the plaintiff and her
GPA or without taking the permission from the Hon’ble
Court under order 18 Rule 3A of CPC.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
he will move appropriate application for examination of
the other witnesses earlier to the plaintiff and her GPA.
Since the objection has been raised by the learned
counsel for the defendants qua examination of the plaintiff
and her GPA at the later stage, therefore, the matter is
required to be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court after
filing of the appropriate application by the plaintiff for
taking permission regarding examination of the official
witnesses at the first instance.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th December, 2022
(Pritam)
20.12.2022 Present:
Shri Ram Lal Thakur (Petitioner in person)
alongwith Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
The petition and its accompanying documents
has been scrutinize under my personal supervision and the
same has been found in order. The petition is also
accompanying the receipt of security costs and the same is
annexed with the petition. The petition is also within
limitation. Be processed further as per Rules.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th December, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit 47 of 2009
21.12.2022 Present:
Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Shri
Rohit for the plaintiff.
Shri Pranjal Munjal, learned vice counsel for
defendant No.1.
Shri Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate with Shri
Khem Raj, Advocate for defendant No.2.
Learned vice counsel for defendant No.1, has
submitted that defendant No.1 is not in contact with his
counsel and despite efforts the whereabouts of defendant
No.1, could not be ascertained. Therefore, he is not
available for adducing his evidence today.
A perusal of the case file shows that the
matter is fixed for recording statement of defendant No.1,
since 2014 and the same is prolonged for one reason or the
other since then.
Therefore, the matter be listed in the Hon’ble
Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21st December, 2022
(Pritam)
CIVIL SUIT NO. 11 OF 2016PW-5: Statement of Sh. Satish Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh
Singh Mehta, aged 48 years, resident of Verma
Apartment, Block No.D, Near Bear Khana,
Khalini, District Shimla 171001.
On oath
27.12.2022
I am sole Proprietor of the plaintiff’s firmhaving its office mentioned in the memo of parties of
the plaint. I was working as fruits and vegetables
commission agent from the year 2011 to 2017 at
Ekantwari, Narkanda, District Shimla, H.P.. The
defendants No. 2 to 6 had formed a Private Ltd.
Company in the name of Shri Tara Business Group
Private Limited Company. They were directors of the
said company and they were actively participating in
the business of the said firm. The Defendant No.1 was
having its office at Thakur Vatika, Khalini, Shimla
and registered office at House No.C-4, New Verma
Apartment Dayton Bear Khana, P.S. Chotta Shimla. In
the month of July, 2012, the defendants No. 2 to 6
contacted me for doing the fruit business with them
and they requested me to associate with them in the
said business. The meeting was conducted in presence
of all the Directors in the office at Khalini, Shimla,
H.P. The defendants had orally agreed that after the
supply of apple on credit basis to them, they will
make the payment within 15 days after the receipt of
the consignment. I have supplied the apple
consignment to the defendants from month of August,
2012 to October, 2012. The record pertaining to
supply of the apple crop is Ext. PW-5/A (three
leaves). The defendants’ company make the payment
on different dates for an amount of Rs.1,68, 10,000/-,
the detail of which is Ext. PW-5/B. I received the last
payment from the defendants’ company on
22.05.2013. The statement of the accounts pertaining
to the amount of the total apple purchased by the
defendants’ company and total payment received from
them by me as well as the balance payment thereof is
Ext. PW-5/C, which bears my signature in red circle
“A”. As per the statement, the balance payment,
which is required to be paid by the defendants’
company is Rs.3,22,70,459/- and in order to pay the
remaining amount the defendants have issued 7
cheques amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Lac) each. I presented the above said 7 cheques in
the bank and all of them were dishonored. Out of
which, I filed four complaints for the dishonoring of
the four cheques, which are pending adjudication in
the District Courts at Shimla. The amount of the
aforesaid dishonored cheques has not been claimed by
me in the present suit. I could not file the complaint
for the three remaining dishonored cheques as the
defendants have assured me that they will make the
payment but when they did not make the payment, by
that time, the time for filing the complaint had
expired. The cheques against which no complaints
were filed are Ext.PW-2/A to PW-2/C. Those
cheques were signed by defendant No.2. The return
memo of aforesaid cheques are Ext. PW-2/D to PW-
2/F. I have supplied 36,952 apple boxes to the
defendants’ company through various trucks, which
were sent to Sector 26, Transport Area, Chandigarh,
and the same were used to be received by defendant
No.2 or his agents. The relevant Challan copies
/Bilties are Ext. PW-5/D-1 to PW-5/D-81. I have
also annexed photocopies of the sale proceeds/bill
book sent to the defendants’ company, which is
Mark-A ( 143 leaves). The original bill book of the
sale proceeds pertaining to Mark-A has been stolen. I
have lodged a report regarding the stealing of the bill
book at Police Station New Shimla, on 15.04.2014, the
copy of the complaint is Mark-B and copy of the
DDR bearing G.D. Entry No.12(A), dated 15.04.2014
is Mark-C. I have also made a complaint of cheating
against the Company and its Directors in Police
Station New Shimla, on 14.03.2014 which is Ext.PW-
5/E (4 leaves). When the SHO, New Shimla did not
lodge an F.I.R. on my complaint then I made a
complaint Ext.PW-5/F to S.P.Shimla, and on the
direction, of the S.P. Shimla, SHO Police Station New
Shimla, lodged an F.I.R.Ext.PW-4/B.
After the investigation the police had sent the
cancellation report, which is pending adjudication in
the Court. I had sent the last consignment to the
defendants on 3.10.2012. Despite repeated requests by
me and the assurance by the defendants, the
defendants did not make any payment to me due to
which I was constrained to file the present civil suit. I
have also annexed copy of the application form under
Section 40 of Himachal Pradesh Agriculture and
Horticulture Produce (Marketing, Development and
Regulations) Act, 2005 for the renewal of my
Registration No.APMC/S&K-04/RMP-113/2011,
which is Mark-D. The copy of Registration number
of the defendants’ company and the details of the
Directors at the time of registration is Ext.PW-1/G.
My suit amounting to Rs.2,10,70,459/- shall be
decreed alongiwth interest in my favour with costs.
xxxxx By Sh. Jeevesh Sharma and Sh.
M.S.Thakur learned Advocates for defendants
No.1 to 4xxx
I was in the business of fruit and vegetable selling
from the year 2011. It is correct that the business
pertaining to sale and purchase of the vegetables and
fruits is governed by the Marketing Board in the State
and in local level, it is governed by the Marketing
Committees. It is incorrect that in the year 2012, I
was not having license to do the business pertaining to
selling of the fruits and vegetables. Self stated that I
have annexed the document pertaining to my license
which is Mark-D. It is correct that as per the APMC
Rules, the vender has to maintain the register
pertaining to the sale and purchase of the fruits and
vegetables. It is correct that the daily return of sale
and purchase of the vegetables and fruits are required
to be made in the specific form supplied by the APMC
and the same is verified by the APMC officials from
time to time. Self stated that the entire forms are
ultimately submitted to the office of APMC at the end
of the Financial Year. It is correct that in the above
said register the details pertaining to the vendee and
the quantity of the consignment is also required to be
mentioned. It is correct that 1% of the sale proceeds
is required to be deposited with the APMC as
marketing fee. I have not annexed with my suit any
document pertaining to the fee deposited by me with
the APMC for the year 2012-13. I do not remember
how much fees had been deposited by me in the said
year with the APMC. It is correct that on the deposit
of marketing fee the receipt is issued by the APMC.
During the apple crop season, the transportation of the
consignments were done on the basis of availability of
the trucks at that particular time. Generally the bill
books are sometimes in duplicate or in triplicate. The
Bill book Ex.PW-5/D-1 to Ex.PW-5/D-81 is in
triplicate form. It is correct that out of the three copies
one is retained by the consigner, one is sent to the
consignee and one is given to the transporter and the
transporter after getting the receipt on his copy from
the consignee, returns the same back to the consigner.
Self stated that as per our system one copy of the
challan was given to the transporter and the copy of
the sale proceeds/bill book were sent to the consignee.
It is correct that on Ext.PW-5/D-1 to PW-5/D-81 or
Mark-A, there is no endorsement qua the receipt of the
consignment by any of the defendants. Self stated that
in our instance when the consignment reaches the
consignee he used to confirm through telephone qua
the receipt of the consignment. I have not placed on
the record copy of the transporter bilty with my suit.
Self stated that the bilty issued by me to the
transporter, who randomly come to us for taking the
consignment. The challan books of which is Ext.
PW-5/D-1 to PW-5/D-81 are used to be prepared date
wise as per the consignment. Challan No.401 pertains
to date 26.09.2011. It is correct that there is no date in
Challan No.601 and the date of Challan No. 602 is
07.08.2012. The date of Challan No. 605 is
13.08.2012 and the date of challan No. 606 is
13.08.2012 and thatof Challan No. 607 is 08.08.2012.
It is incorrect that the challan book has not been
prepared date wise. It is incorrect that due to the
variation in the dates on the challan numbers, the
challan book has been made on the basis of suitability.
It is correct that Ext. PW-5/A to Ex.PW-5/C, no date
has been mentioned. Self stated that the aforesaid
documents were prepared after the finishing of the
apple season. It is incorrect that Ext. PW-5/A to PW-
5/C have been prepared falsely and without any basis.
It is incorrect that the turnover of the business is to be
verified from the CA. Self stated that the turnover of
the entire business could be verified from the fee
deposited with the APMC. It is incorrect that while
dealing with the defendants’ Company and defendant
No.2, initially I took 10 cheques from defendant No.2
as security cheques. It is correct that the signatures on
the cheques and writing on the body of cheques are
with different pens. Self stated that the cheques were
filled by defendant No.2. It is incorrect that the
amount has been written by me on the blank cheques.
It is incorrect that I have supplied 12,656 boxes to
the defendants’ company and the amount of the said
boxes was Rs.1,68,10,000/- which has been duly
received by me. It is incorrect that I have misused the
blank security cheques of defendant No.2. It is
incorrect that I have not supplied 36,952 boxes to the
defendants. It is incorrect that I am not entitled to any
outstanding amount as claimed in the suit from the
defendants. It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely.
xxx Sh. Peeyush Verma Advocate, for
defendants No. 5 and 6 xxx
It is incorrect that the defendants No. 5 and
6 never came in contact with me nor any
agreement was done with them by me. It is
incorrect that I cannot identify the defendants No.
5 and 6. It is correct that I have lodged.
F.I.R.Ext.PW-4/B at police station New Shimla
pertaining to the same cause of action. It is
incorrect that after the lodging of the F.I.R. the
police officials consistently called me to the
police station, for producing the supporting
documents pertaining to my cause of action. Self
stated that the police officials called me once for
taking the addresses of the defendants. I cannot
say whether any proceedings were recorded by
the police official during the inquiry of my case.
I do not know anything about the documents
Mark D-1 to D-6. It is incorrect that overall
superintendence, responsibility and management
of the defendants’ company was to be looked
after by the defendant No.2, namely, Sh.
Rajeshwer Sarbwal. Self stated that all the
defendants were managing the affairs of the
company. I do not know that the financial affairs
of the company were looked after by the
defendant No.2, exclusively. Self stated that
cheques were issued to me by defendant No.2. I
do not know in April, 2013, defendant No.2
mysteriously disappeared from Shimla. I do not
know that the defendant No.1, is a private Ltd.
Company and liability of the directors is only
upto Rs.10,000/-. I do not know that on
19.12.2012, the defendants No.5 and 6 had
resigned from the directorship of the company,
which was duly accepted on 24.12.2012 by
defendant No.2. It is incorrect that there is no
liability of defendants No. 5 and 6 in the present
suit.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
27th December, 2022
(ravinder)
Civil Suit No.11 of 2016
27.12.2022: Mr. Parmod Thakur and Mr. Nipun Thakur,
Advocates for the plaintiff.
Mr. Jeevesh Sharma and Mr. M.S.Thakur,
Advocates for defendants No.1 to 4.
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate for defendants
No.5 and 6.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated
that no witness has been recorded as PW-1 and the
statement of witnesses has been started to be recorded
from PW-2. Accordingly, statement of plaintiff Sh. Satish
Mehta has been recorded as PW-5.
Smt. Suman Lata, Record Keeper, New
Judicial Record, District Courts Shimla is present with the
record of the record room. The learned counsel for the
plaintiff has submitted that the case pertaining to F.I.R. 9
of 2014 is still pending adjudication before the JMFC
Court No.6, Shimla and he want to examine the concerned
clerk pertaining to the F.I.R. 9 of 2014, which is pending
adjudication in the Court as of date. Accordingly Smt.
Suman Lata, Record keeper present today is discharged as
she has not brought the entire record.
Let the fresh summon be issued for the service of
concerned official from the Court JMFC, Court No.6,
Shimla alongwith the record pertaining to F.I.R. 9 of 2014,
registered at Police Station New Shimla. Let the summons
be also issued to Imran Khan, witness mentioned at Sl.
No.1 in the list of the wittiness for the same date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2022
(ravinder)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
29.12.2022: Mr. George, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
defendants.
Sh. Hans Raj is examined as PW-2 today. Sh.
Bikham Ram is present today, however, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff vide his separate statement has
given up Sh. Bikham Ram, Sh. Bhagirath, Sh. Jagdish
Chand and Sh. Alam Ram.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for summoning the remaining PWs for
date to be fixed by him.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
29th December, 2022
(ravinder)
PW-2:- Statement of Hans Raj son of Sh. Ram Swroop,
aged 61 years, resident of Village Dador, P.O.
Dhaban, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P.
On Oath
29.12.2022
The parties to the lis are personally known to
me. In the month of October, 2019, the defendants called me and
Bikhu Ram at Ner Chowk, District Mandi, H.P. and they told me
as they want to sell their property i.e. shops, land and house at
Ner Chowk in order to pay the loan amount of the bank.
Thereafter, I and Bikhu Ram contacted the plaintiff Ram Lal and
told him that the defendants are interested to sell their property at
Ner Chowk. The plaintiff Ram Lal was interested to purchase the
property, therefore, he told us to fix a meeting for negotiations
with the defendants and after the negotiations between the parties,
both the parties agreed to make the transaction of the property for
an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore twenty lacs).
Thereafter both the parties entered into an agreement i.e. Ext. PW-
1/A in my and Bikhu’s presence. My signatures in the agreement
Ext. PW-1/A is within red circle “F”. Bikhu has also put his
signatures which are in read circle “E” on agreement Ext.PW-1/A.
The parties to the agreement also appended their signatures on the
agreement in my and Bikhu’s presence. The agreement was
typed by document writer Bhagirath and the same was attested by
the Notary Public in our presence. On the date of the execution
of agreement i.e. Ext.PW-1/A, the plaintiff paid an amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs) to the defendants through
bank transaction. The plaintiff had also paid an amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) four days earlier to the execution of
the agreement to the defendant No.1-Ashok Kumar. It has been
settled between the parties that within one month from the date of
-2-
the execution of the agreement the plaintiff will pay an amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs) to the defendants and the
parties will get the sale deed executed on or before 30 th May,
2020. Thereafter, I, Ram Lal and Bikhu Ram approached the
defendants to get the sale deed executed in the month of January,
2020 but the defendants prolonged the execution of the sale deed
as they were demanding money. Before the spread of the Covid-
19 Pandemic in the month of March, 2020, we again approached
the defendant for execution of sale deed, but due to the Covid-19
pandemic the same could not be executed. Whenever the plaintiff
paid any amount to the defendants, the receipts to this effect were
got executed which are Ext. PW-1/C-1 to C-9. All the receipts i.e.
Ext. PW-1/C-1 to C-9 bears my and Bikhu’s signatures. The
defendants who received the payment at the relevant point of time,
also signed the above said receipts and the same were got verified
and signed by Councilor of Nagar Parished, Ner Chowk. In the
month of January, 2020, the defendant had received an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) from the plaintiff without any
receipt on the assurance that the sale deed will executed within a
short period. In the month of early May, 2020, the plaintiff
started to lay the lintel with the permission of the defendants on
the property for which the sale deed was to be executed for which
the plaintiff had given a contract amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- to the
contractor, namely, Hukam Chand. After the laying of the lintel
on the disputed property the plaintiff put his lock but thereafter the
defendants put their own lock on the said property. On 30th May,
2022, I, Bikhu Ram alongwith the plaintiff visited the house of the
defendants for convincing the defendants to get the sale deed
-3-
executed. Though the defendants have agreed that they had
received the money but on the pretext of the Covid pandemic they
again prolonged the execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, we
went to the Tehsil at Balh, Ner Chowk, where we found that the
defendants have taken the loan from the bank and the same has not
been returned by them. Thereafter we went to the Indian
Overseas Bank, Ner Chowk, where we came to know that the
defendants had not repaid their loan which was taken by them
against the said property. In spite of the expiry of the date of the
execution of the sale deed the defendants the defendants assured
that they will get the sale deed executed. On 12 th June, 2020,
defendant had received an amount of Rs.14,80,000/- from the
plaintiff vide receipt Ext.PW-1/C. Defendant No.3 also used to
receive the amount from the plaintiff even after the expiry of the
date of the execution of the sale deed as per the agreement. We
also visited the Patwari and it was informed by him that the loan
amount has not been paid by the defendants due to which there is
an entry of the mortgaged is still existing in the revenue record.
Marks A and B are the photographs of the property on which lintel
was led by the plaintiff. Since the defendants have not executed
the sale deed despite taking the money therefore, the plaintiff was
constrained to file the present suit
xxx Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate for defendants xxx
I am matriculate and by profession I am an agriculturist and
a shopkeeper. My shop of spare parts is at Dador. I have not
brought the plaintiff to the defendants. Self stated that since the
defendants were inclined their property therefore, I informed the
-4-
plaintiff about the defendants’ intention of selling their property. I
not a real estate agent nor I have got any sale transaction executed
between the parties. I have not signed any other agreement qua
property dealing except this agreement. I have bank account in
the name of my shop at PNB Bank Ner Chowk. It is incorrect
that the receipts Ext.PW-1/C-1 to C-9 were already prepared by
the plaintiff. Self stated that after receiving the payment the same
were executed between the parties. I do not know from where the
plaintiff arranged the money before paying the same to the
defendants to the different intervals. Self stated that the plaintiff
had sold his property in the year 2018. I am not a signatory to the
agreement, if any, executed by the plaintiff qua his property. I
was not present when the plaintiff sold his property and I have not
seen the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in the year 2018 qua
his property. It is incorrect that in the month of May, 2020, the
Corona was at peak and the construction activities were totally
banned. Self stated that the people used to do their construction
work during that period. I do not know how many labourers were
employed by the plaintiff at his site. Self stated that he has given
a contract of construction work to a contractor. It is incorrect that
on 28.08.2018, the loan of the bank had already been cleared by
the defendant Ashok Kumar and on 09.06.2020 defendant Vinod
Kumar had also repaid their his loan as well as defendant No.3
had also cleared the loan 31.12.2019 of their respective bank vide
Mark-D-1 to D-3. The plaintiff is the Sole Prop. of Santoshi Steel
Industry at Ner Chowk. I do not know the bank account details
of the plaintiff. It is incorrect that due to the poor financial
condition he was not able to pay the entire sale consideration to
-5-
the defendants. On 30th May, 2020, we have not purchased any
stamp papers for the execution of the sale deed. Self stated that
since it came to our knowledge that the property was mortgaged,
therefore, the execution of the sale deed was not possible. The
plaintiff told that he has given a notice to the defendants. I am
not aware whether any reply of the notice was given by
defendants. It is incorrect that no NOC were provided by the
defendants to the plaintiff alongwith the reply to the notice. It is
incorrect that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the
balance sale consideration due to insufficient funds and has falsely
filed the present suit in order to harass the defendants. It is
incorrect that I am depositing false today since I am a property
dealer and having interest in the transactions. It is incorrect that
all the receipts are manipulated subsequently and no financial
transaction had taken place.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
29th December, 2022
(ravinder)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
Statement of Sh. George, learned counsel for the
plaintiff
Without oath
29.12.2022
Stated that I give up Sh. Bikham Ram being
repetitive in nature, Sh. Bhagirath, Sh. Jagdish Singh Thakur
and Sh. Alam Ram, being witness to the admitted documents.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
29th December, 2022
(ravinder)
CMP No. 14361 of 2021
in RSA No. 492 of 2015
04.01.2023: Ms. Meena Devi, Advocate, vice
Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant seeks
some more time to take steps for summoning the witnesses
of the applicant.
Let steps be taken within fifteen days for
summoning the witnesses of the applicant, thereafter the
matter be listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial)
for fixing the date of the applicant’s witnesses.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th January, 2023
Pritam
COPC No. 190 of 2019
04.01.2023: Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate vice Mr.
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties have prayed
that the matter be listed for recording statement of the
applicant witnesses in the fourth week of March, 2023.
Accordingly, let the case be listed on
23.03.2023, for recording the statement of remaining CWs.
Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant has
submitted that she will produce the petitioner on herself
responsibility on the date fixed.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th January, 2023
Pritam
04.01.2023
Present: Kumari Simran Singh and Shri Vikram Singh
alongwith Shri Ravinder Singh Jaswal,
Advocate
An application under Order XXXIII, Rule I
read with Section 151 CPC has been filed for seeking
permission to file the suit as an indigent person. The
same has been presented before me. Let the same be
processed as per Rules.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
Section Officer (Scrutiny)
04.01.2023 Present:
Dr. Anil Dhiman, (Petitioner in person)
alongwith Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate.
The petition and its accompanying documents
has been scrutinize under my personal supervision and the
same has been found in order. The petition is also
accompanying the receipt of security costs and the same is
annexed with the petition. The petition is also within
limitation. Be processed further as per Rules.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th January, 2023
(Pritam)
07.01.2023 Present:
Shri Mahesh Raj, (Petitioner in person)
alongwith Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate.
The petition and its accompanying documents
has been scrutinize under my personal supervision and the
same has been found in order. The petition is also
accompanying the receipt of security costs and the same is
annexed with the petition. The petition is also within
limitation. Be processed further as per Rules.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th January, 2023
(Pritam)
10.01.2023 Present:
Shri Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for the
appellant/non-applicant.
Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned vice counsel for
the respondent/applicant.
Learned vice counsel for the
respondent/applicant has submitted that due to ill health,
the applicant (Khem Chand) is not in a position to come to
the Court for adducing his evidence today. Learned vice
counsel for respondent/applicant seeks some more time for
getting the witness (Khem Chand) examined. Learned
opposing counsel has not made any objection to that
effect.
Let the applicant (Khem Chand) be produced on the
next date of hearing to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) on self responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th January, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 6 of 2011
01.03.2023 Present:-
Shri Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate, with Shri
Khem,Raj, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, for defendants
No. 4 to 6.
As per office report, steps for summoning the
DWs have not been taken by the defendants. Learned
counsel for the defendants seeks some more time for
taking the steps.
Let steps be taken within three weeks,
thereafter process be issued for service of DWs for the
date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st March, 2023
(Pritam)
Cr. Rev. No. 131 of 2022
04.03.2023 Present:-
Shri Pratik Sharma, Advocate, vice
Shri Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Shri Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Learned vice counsel for the petitioner seeks
two weeks time for filing compliance affidavit, in terms of
the order dated 18.07.2022 of the Hon’ble Court.
Let the case be listed on 20.03.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th March, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2013
10.03.2023 Present:-
Mr. Raman Ravi Verma, learned vice counsel
for the plaintiff.
Ms. Pragti, Advocate, vice Mr. Digvijay
Singh, Advocate for defendants No. 1,6 and
7.
Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate, vice Mr.
Anshul Bansal, Advocate for defendants No.
2, 3 and 8.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that
after the COVID pandemic the case was listed for the first
time today due to which the witness Mandeep Sandhu
could not put his appearance today. Learned vice counsel
for defendants No. 1,6 and 7 seeks some time for
producing the defendants witness on self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial ) for fixing the date of defendants
evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th March, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
DW-3: Statement of Sh. Sajeev Soni, Chartered
Account, Surveyor, aged 62 years, 1047/16,
Hari Singh Nalwa Street, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi-110005.
On Oath
15.03.2023The respondent-Insurance company had
engaged me in the year 2013 for assessing the loss
incurred by the plaintiff-company qua loss of business
interruption. Accordingly, I and my Assistant
Tilottam Kumar visited the site of the plaintiff
company after my engagement by the defendants. I
also obtained and verified the record of the plaintiff-
company qua the business loss incurred by the
plaintiff-company. Thereafter we verified the record
i.e. various balance sheets, production records relating
to different periods of the plaintiff-company. On the
verification of the various records of the plaintiff-
company, we analyzed and computed the business
interruption loss of the plaintiff-company. We also
conducted the meetings with the officials of the
plaintiff-company before assessing the loss. After
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
deliberation with the official of the respondent-
accompany and after verifying the record of the
plaintiff-company, I prepared the final report Ex
DW2/A, which is duly signed by me. After
submission of the final report, Ex. DW2/A, the
plaintiff-company made a representation for increased
cost of working. Subsequently, I issued addendum
report Ex. PW1/H . As per the Ex. DW2/A, the net
loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.73,52,605/- and in
the addendum increased cost of the working was
assessed as Rs.5,66,969/-. Therefore, according to my
assessment the plaintiff-company is entitled to the
total amount Rs.79,19,574/- as full and final
settlement towards the loss of business interruption/
profit.
xxxxx By Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate for
the Plaintiff.
I am associated with the Insurance
Company on and w.e.f. 04.02.1987. I am not aware
that the plaintiff-company had taken four insurance
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
policy pertaining to the business loss caused to the
plaintiff-company. Self stated that neither the insurer
nor the insured provided any policy except the one
considered by me while assessing the loss in my
survey report. The insurance policy which was
provided to me was valid from 04.03.2012 to
03.03.2013. It is correct that the plaintiff-company
suffered the loss in the month of February, 2013. It is
incorrect that there was any kind of indemnity clause
in the insurance company policy to indemnify the
plaintiff-company till they achieve the optimum
generation. Self stated that the loss of business was
technically assessed based on the policy terms and
conditions by considering standard production,
interruption period, annual production and pre-
indemnity period. It is correct that while assessing the
loss I had taken into consideration indemnity period of
91 days. Self stated that abnormal production days of
1.25 days based on the past analysis were reduced and
final interruption was taken as 89.75 days. It is
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
incorrect that as per the policy the indemnity period
should have been upto 1st of November, 2013. In my
final report I have assessed standard turn over on the
basis of terms and conditions of the insurances policy,
which means the same period in the last year for the
interruption days under this policy, adjusted with trend
based on the water flow discharge i.e. monsoon water
flow fluctuations. I have not seen the policy wordings
in the Court file today and due to non-availability, it is
not possible to pinpoint and show the exact clauses of
the Insurance-Company. I was aware the indemnity
period of the Insurance policy, when the addendum
was issued. Self stated that the purpose of issuing
addendum was to allow the increased cost of working
as claimed by the plaintiff-company subsequently. I
am not aware when the company attained the optimum
generation after issuance of addendum by me. Self
stated that I am not able to understand the word
optimum asked by plaintiff-company, since the loss
has been assessed under business interruption policy
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
based on the procedure as required to assess loss of
profit losses, such as based on standard production
contribution in comparison with the pre-loss period
production adjusted based on the interruption period.
It is incorrect that whatever has been stated by me
today is contrary to the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy as well as the policy wording. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
15th March, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 27 of 2016
Statement of M.S. Katoch, learned vice counsel
for the defendants.
Without oath
15.03.2023
Stated that I closed the evidence on behalf
of the defendant as the list of witnesses has been
exhausted.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
15th March, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit 27 of 2016
15.03.2023 Present:-
Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with
Shri M.S. Katoch, Advocate for the
defendants.
Statement of Shri Sanjeev Soni, is recorded as
DW-3. Learned vice counsel for the defendants has closed
the evidence on behalf of the defendants vide his separate
statement.
The evidence on behalf of the parties is
complete. Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15th March, 2023
(Pritam)
FAO No. 268 of 2019
17.03.2023 Present:-
Shri Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate for the
appellant.
Shri Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
In compliance to the order dated 02.12.2022,
of the Hon’ble Court, respondent No. 1 (a) Shri Neelam
Singh S/o Late Shri Viren Singh and respondent No.2,
Smt. Sheela w/o Viren Singh, has been ordered to furnish
the surety bonds to the satisfaction of Registrar General or
any other Registrar of this Court.
The above said respondents have filed the
surety bond in the Registry on 06.03.2023. However, the
perusal of the bond of Shri Neelam Singh shows the head
`Surety Bond’ but it has been signed by Shri Neelam
Singh and therefore, the same is said to be a `Personal
Bond’ which is duly supported by affidavit of Smt. Sheela
w/o Late Viren Singh. There is no surety bond on record.
Further, Smt. Sheela has also filed the personal bond under
the head `Surety Bond’ but apparently it appears to be
`Personal Bond’ and the same is duly supported by her
own affidavit. As per direction of Hon’ble Court, thesurety bonds are required to be furnished by both the
FAO No. 268 of 2019
respondents in whose favour the amount has been orderedto be released. Apparently, no surety bonds have been filed
in compliance to the orders of the Hon’ble Court. In that
eventuality, the order of the Hon’ble Court has not been
complied with in letter and spirit, therefore, the bonds
furnished by the applicants cannot be attested and
accepted.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
17th March, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2022
20.03.2023 Present:-
Shri Rahul Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev
K. Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate for the
respondent.
As per the order dated 18.07.2022, of the
Hon’ble Court, the petitioner was directed to deposit the
compounding fee with the State Legal Services Authority
and No Dues Certificate was also directed to be furnished
during the said day. Further, as per the order dated
18.07.2022, the Hon’ble Court was informed that the
compounding fee has already been deposited with the
concerned authority. The petitioner was also directed to
furnish the compliance affidavit in this regard with the
undersigned. The case was repeatedly listed for furnishing
the compliance affidavit as well as receipt regarding
depositing of the compounding fee from 25.11.2022, but
till date neither the compliance affidavit nor the receipt
qua deposit of the compounding fee has been furnished
despite three opportunities granted to the petitioner.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th March, 2023
(Pritam)
Cr. MMO No. 67 of 2023
23.03.2023 Present:-
Shri Rohit Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Yash Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
In compliance to the order dated 03.03.2023, of
the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner (Shri Hardev Sharma), has
filed compliance affidavit along with the receipt from the H.P.
State Legal Services Authority, qua depositing of Rs./10,500/-
i.e. 5% of the cheque amount, which is on record.
A perusal of the file shows that two cheques
amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- each, had been issued by the
petitioner. As per the orders of the Hon’ble Court 5% of the
cheques amount was to be deposited with the H.P. State Legal
Services Authority, which amounts to Rs.11,000/-. Since as
per the receipt, the petitioner has deposited an amount of
Rs.10,500/- with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority,
therefore, there is a short fall of Rs.500/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he
will deposit the remaining amount with the H.P. State Legal
Services Authority within a week and thereafter, he will
produce the receipt qua deposit of the remaining amount i.e.
Rs.500/-.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
the respondent has received the entire settlement amount from
the petitioner and nothing is due to him from the petitioner.
Let the case be listed on 10.04.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd March, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 48 of 2016
06.04.2023 Present:-
Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. B.S.
Thakur, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for defendant
No.1.
Shri Daleep Chand, Advocate, vice Mr. V.D.
Khidta, Advocate, for defendant No.2.
Learned vice counsel has submitted that they will
produce the plaintiff on the next date of hearing on self
responsibility.
As per the report of Registry PW i.e. Shri
Lakhvinder Singh is served. However, learned vice counsel
for the plaintiff has moved an application for his exemption for
today. The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned in
the application.
Let fresh steps be taken for service of the PW
Lakhvinder Singh within fifteen days, thereafter, the process be
issued for the service of PWs for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
06th April, 2022
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 11 of 2020
06.04.2023 Present:-
Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Shri
Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the
petitioner(s).
Shri Jitender Dua and Smt. Seema Dua, are
present in person.
Learned counsel for the applicant has moved an
application for furnishing the solvent security bonds in
compliance to the orders dated 06.03.2020, passed in OMP
No. 84 of 2020 in Arb. Case No. 11 of 2020 and order dated
07.03.2023, passed in Chamber Appeal No. 1 of 2022 in
Arb. Case No. 11 of 2020. The application is accompanied
by solvent security bond of Shri Jitender Dua, S/o Late Shri
R.S. Dua and Smt. Seema Dua, who are promoters of
applicant-Company No.3 i.e. M/s Cure Health
Pharmaceutical Private Limited at Village Raipur, P.O.
Deothi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
Shri Jitender Dua, has filed the solvent security
bond alongwith the Schedule-I of the properties, sale deeds,
which are annexed as Annexures A-1 to A-22 and the
valuation of the above said properties, duly prepared by the
approved valuer of the Income Tax Department regarding
each of the properties. Further, alongwith the application,
the applicant has also furnished solvency certificate
Annexure X-I, of Shri Jitender Dua and as per the solvency
certificate duly issued by the approved valuer of the Income
Tax Department, the total value of the above said properties,
of Shri Jitender Dua, as per the market rate is
Rs.,5,83,87,152/-. The solvent security bond is duly
supported by the affidavit of Shri Jitender Dua, wherein he
Arb. Case No. 11 of 2020
has specifically averred that the properties mentioned in the
above said Annexures i.e., A-1 to A-22, are free from all
encumbrances.
Further, the applicant has also placed on record
the solvent security bond duly furnished by Smt. Seema Dua
alongwith the Schedule-II of the properties, sale deeds,
which are annexed as Annexures A-23 to A-30 and their
valuation reports. Annexure X-1, i.e. solvency certificate
duly issued by the above mentioned approved valuer, shows
that the total value of the properties of Smt. Seema Dua, is
about Rs.1,92,93,035/-. The said solvent security bond is
duly supported by the affidavit of Smt. Seema Dua, wherein
she has specifically averred that the said properties are free
from all charges and encumbrances.
Annexure X-1, i.e., solvency certificate duly issued
by the approved valuer depicts that the entire value of the
properties mentioned in Schedule-I and Schedule-II, of Shri
Jintender Dua and Smt. Seema Dua, is about
Rs.7,76,80,187/-.
As per the order dated 06.03.2020 of the Hon’ble
Court, the applicants were directed to deposit the entire
award amount in the Registry of this Court alongwith upto
date interest accruing thereon or subject to furnishing of the
solvent security bonds equivalent to the said amount or a
Bank Guarantee in the Registry of this Court. As per the
award passed by the Arbitrator, the award amount has been
assessed by the Arbitrator to the tune of Rs. 4,65,57,560/-,
Arb. Case No. 11 of 2020
alongwith interest @ of 12% from the date it fell due till its
realization.
Therefore, in view of the solvency certificate duly
issued by the approved valuer, the solvent security bonds
furnished by Shri Jintender Dua and Smt. Seema Dua, are
duly attested and accepted by me. All the papers filed with
the application be tagged with the case file.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
06th April, 2022
(Pritam)
Cr. MMO No. 67 of 2023
10.04.2023 Present:-
Shri D.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner
seeks some more time for depositing the short fall amount
with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority
and producing the receipt qua depositing of the balance
amount. Let the same be deposited within two weeks.
List on 26.04.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th April, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016AW-3: Statement of Shri Sushil Kumar, S/o Shri
Suram Chand, Village and Post Office Ladret,
Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
10.04.2023Stated that Shri Suram Chand, applicant is
my father. I am his General Power of Attorney
Holder. I have brought the Original General Power of
Attorney today, vide which I have been duly
authorized to appear before any Civil/Criminal Court
in any matter, related to him or any appeal from
Lower Court to Higher Court, since he is about 70
years old and is unable to appear personally. The
copy of the General Power of Attorney is Ex.
AW-3/A. I am fully conversant with the facts of the
present case. Initially in the Lower Court my father
had filed a case regarding encroachment on our land
by the non-applicants/appellants. The Trial Court
gave the decision in our favour. Thereafter, the
present appellants/non-applicants had filed an appeal
in the First Appellant Court, which was also dismissed
by
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
the First Appellant Court. Thereafter, the present
appellants has filed the appeal before the Hon’ble
High Court and vide order dated 17.04.2017, the Court
stayed the execution of the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the learned Courts below and the
parties were directed not to change the nature of the
suit land and not to create any encumbrance over the
suit land till the final disposal of the main appeal. The
copy of the said order is Ex. AW-3/B. On 14.11.2021,
Madan Lal, Subhash Chand, Parveen Kumar and
Ashwani Kumar (appellants), started to raise
construction of the septic tank over Khasra No.44/1
(disputed land) despite the stay order of the Hon’ble
High Court. On the said date, they (appellants) have
brought JCB machine and started to dig the land. We
tried to convenience them not to disobey the order of
the Hon’ble High Court but they did not pay any heed
to our request and started to quarrel with us. We also
showed them stay order of the Hon’ble Court. When
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
they did not stop, then we went to Pardhan of our
Panchayat and submitted a written application Mark-
`A’ alongwith the stay order of the Hon’ble High
Court. The Pardhan of our Gram Panchayat called the
appellants and asked them not to carry out any
construction work on the spot. Inspite of the asking of
the Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat, the appellants did
not stop the construction/digging work. On
15.11.2021, we made an application to ASI Nagrota
Surian Mark-`E’, and also apprised about the stay
order of the Hon’ble High Court by annexing the same
with the application. But the Police did not take any
action by saying that the matter is pending
adjudication in the Court. On 14.11.2021, I also
clicked the photographs of the spot from my mobile,
which are Mark-F-1 to F-6. Thereafter, we again
moved an application before the Hon’ble High Court
and vide order dated 23.11.2021, the parties were
directed to maintain status quo as of date and further
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
directed not to raise any construction by any of the
parties or to change the nature of the suit land. Inspite
of the order dated 23.11.2021, the appellants did not
stop and carried out the construction work. I have
clicked the photographs, which are Mark-G-1 to G-3.
Thereafter, we again moved another application in the
Hon’ble High Court and vide order dated 01.12.2021,
the Hon’ble Court directed to provide police
assistance and the SHO Police Station Jawali was
directed to implement the order of the Court. He was
further directed to take the assistance of the Revenue
Authority with respect to the land on which the
construction is going on. Thereafter, the police
personnel from Police Post Nagrota Surian alongwith
the Pardhan and Up-Pradhan, visited the spot on
05.12.2021, and showed the orders of the Hon’ble
Court to both the parties and directed the parties not to
raise any construction. Thereafter, the revenue
officials accompanied by the police officials prepared
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
the spot report Ex- RW-2/A and recorded the
statement of the parties, which are Ex.RW-1/A and
RW-1/B. The police officials also clicked the
photographs on the said date, which are Mark-A and
Mark-B. Thereafter, on 16.04.2022, police officials
alongwith the revenue officials again visited the spot
and prepared the spot report, which is Ex-RW-2/B.
The appellants have raised the toilet and bathroom on
the disputed land despite the stay orders from the
Hon’ble Court. Therefore, they have breached the
orders of the Hon’ble Court. After preparing the final
report the police official submitted his report in the
Hon’ble High Court.
Xxxxx Shri Rahul Thakur, Advocate vice Shri
Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
The disputed land was demarcated by Field
Kanungo Shri Bhajan Lal after filing of the present
application in the Court. No Local Commissioner was
appointed by the Court. Self stated that there was
direction from the Hon’ble Court to the police to take
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
the assistance from the revenue officials. At the time
of demarcation, me and my father alongwith the
appellants as well as Police and Revenue Officials
were present. At the time of demarcation, the revenue
officials have also brought the Musabi and
accordingly, demarcated the land. It is incorrect that
the appellants have raised the construction over their
own land and we have unnecessarily filed the
complaint against the appellants in order to harass
them. It is incorrect that the demarcation has been
done by the retired Kanungo.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
10th April, 2023
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
AW-4: Statement of Smt. Kiran Kumari, Pardhan
Gram Panchayat Ludret, Post Office Ludret,
Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal
Peradesh.
On oath
10.04.2023
Stated that in the year 2021, I was Pardhan
of Gram Panchayat Ludret. On 14.11.2021, the
applicants moved an application Mark-D, now Ex.
AW-4/A, before me alongwith the copy of the order
dated 17.04.2017 of the Hon’ble High Court. The
application Ex.AW-4/A, bears my signature in red
circle `A’. Thereafter, I asked the appellants to stop
the construction work in view of the orders of the
Hon’ble High Court. However, the appellants told me
that where they are raising construction is not a
disputed land and there is no stay order qua the
disputed land as mentioned in the application of the
applicants. When the Police visited the spot they
called me. I alongwith Up-Pardhan, visited the spot
and at that time both the parties were present there.
The police officials requested the appellants to stop
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
the construction work but the appellants straight way
refused. I again visited the spot second time when the
police alongwith revenue officials visited the spot in
the year 2022. We called both the parties on the spot
but none of the parties came to the spot. The revenue
officials demarcated the land and the police officials
clicked the photographs of the spot and prepared the
report.
Xxxxx Shri Rahul Thakur, Advocate vice Shri
Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
The demarcation was conducted by the
revenue officials in my presence. At that time Field
Kanungo, Patwari and Revenue Chowkidar were
present alongwith the police officials. The
demarcation on the spot was conducted by the serving
Field Kanungo. It is incorrect that the demarcation
was conducted by the retired Kanungo. It is correct
that at the time of demarcation in the year 2022, none
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
of the parties came to the spot, despite calling them
by the police officials.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
15th March, 2023
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
AW-5: Statement of Shri Avinder Singh, ASI,
Police Chowki Nagrota Surian, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
10.04.2023
Stated that in the year 2022, I was posted at
Police Post Nagrota Surian. The order dated
17.03.2022 from the Hon’ble High Court, was
received at Police Station Jawali, which was
forwarded to Police Post Nagrota Surian, by SHO
Police Station Jawali, whereby the direction was given
to get the disputed spot identified from the revenue
officials. Accordingly, I alongwith the revenue
official visited the spot on 16.04.2022 and got the spot
identified from the revenue officials. The report Ex.
AW-5/A (28 leaves) was submitted in the Court. I
also clicked the photographs Mark-H-1 to H-4 on the
spot from my personal mobile. When I visited the
spot alongwith the revenue officials, the construction
of the bathroom and toilet had already been taken
place. After the demarcation, the revenue officials
apprised me that the constructions of the bathroom and
toilet has been done on Khasra No.44.
Xxxxx Shri Rahul Thakur, Advocate vice Shri
Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
I have prepared the report EX.AW-5/A, on
the basis of the report/demarcation by the revenue
officials. I have not given any prior notice in writing
to the appellants before visiting the spot. It is incorrect
that I never visited the spot and based my report only
on the basis of revenue officials.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
10th April, 2023
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
Statement of Shri Mukul Sood, learned counsel
for the applicants.
Without oath
10.04.2023
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of
the applicants as the list of witnesses has been
exhausted.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
10th April, 2023
RSA No. 481 of 2016
10.04.2023 Present:-
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the applicants.
Shri Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for the non-
applicant.
Three witnesses namely Shri Sushil Kumar,
Ms. Kiran and ASI Avinder Singh, examined as AW-3 to
AW-5. Learned counsel for the applicants vide his separate
statement has closed the evidence on behalf of the
applicants. The perusal of the earlier evidence recorded on
25.11.2022, shows that due to some inadvertence the
statement of the witnesses of the applicants have been
reflected as RW-1 and RW-2, instead of AW-1 and AW-2.
Therefore, the Section Officer concerned is directed to make
the correction accordingly in order to avoid any confusion.
Learned vice counsel for the non-applicant
seeks time for taking steps for RWs. Let steps be taken
within fifteen days and the case be listed before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of RWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th April, 2022
(Pritam)
Cr. MMO No. 131 of 2022
12.04.2023 Present:-
Shri Rahul, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev K.
Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Pallvi Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Kul
Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the
respondent.
As per office report, the compliance affidavit
alongwith the receipt qua depositing of 5% of the cheque
amount has been filed by the petitioner. However, the
perusal of order dated 18.07.2022, shows that there is a
specific direction of the Hon’ble Court (in para-4 of the
judgment) that 10% of the cheque amount as compounding
fees be deposited by the petitioner with the H.P. State Legal
Services Authority.
Since 5% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/-, has
been deposited by the petitioner, though he was required to
deposit additional Rs.5,000/- (i.e. 10% of the cheque
amount in total), in compliance to the order of Hon’ble Court
dated 18.07.2022, therefore, there is a deficiency of
Rs.5,000/-, in depositing the amount.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks
time for depositing the balance amount i.e. Rs.5,000/- and
producing the receipt thereof from the H.P. State Legal
Services Authority.
Let the case be listed on 03.05.2023, as prayed for.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th April, 2022
(Pritam)Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
(M/s Kas Technology Solutions Vs. M/S Telepoint Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.)18.04.2023: Present: Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Kanwar Bhupinder Singh,
Advocate, for the defendant.
Statement of Sh. Shivam Karol as DW-2
recorded today. Learned counsel vide his separate
stated that the defendant does not want to examine the
defendant’s witnesses mentioned in the list filed on
29.04.2014 and give them up. Learned counsel further
submits that now he wants to examine defendant and
witness mentioned witness at Sl. No.3 in the list of
witnesses dated 28.03.2019. Learned counsel for the
defendant further submitted that he will bring the
defendant at their own responsibility.
Let the summons be issued to the witness
at Sl. No.3 i.e. Mr. Raddibattula Raji Reddy, in the list
of witnesses dated 28.03.2019, for the date to be fixed
by the learned Additional Registrar (Judicial). On the
said date defendant be also produced on self
responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th April, 2022
(ravinder)
Ex. Pet. No. 27 of 2010
24.04.2023: Present: Ms Drishti Sirswal, Advocate vice
Mr. Balwant Kukreja, for the
petitioner/DH
Shri Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for
respondent/JDs.
As per the office report proclamation
charges have been deposited and steps for issuing the
warrant of sale have been taken. Let the warrant of
sale be issued as per the following shedule:-
I. Date of Proclamation – 25.05.2023
2. Sale of property – 26.06.2023
3. Report – 10.07.2023
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th April, 2022
(Pritam)
Regarding violation of the laws by the Hotels. It is
submitted that it has brought to the knowledge of Hon’ble
Court by the Gram Sudhar Sabha Koti PO Jawali Tehsil
Kasouli, that in private hotels at Koti i.e. Vollywood, 7
Hills, Sakoon and Pet Puja Mehal, the DJ is played
throughout the night and intoxicant such as whisky beer
Hukka are served in the open places. The empty botels
have been kept by the Gram Panchayat as a proof which
are being served by these Hotels in the open roofs of the
hotels. It is further submitted that sometimes at about 12
mid night, 1 or 2 a.m, crackers are fired due to which it has
become difficult for the residents of the village to have a
sound sleep. It is further submitted that on 8.8.2022 one
complaint has been sent to DC Solan, but no action had
been taken. Thereafter, the members of the Gram
Panchayat met the local MLA with ADC Solan, and
submitted their complaint, who marked the said complaint
to SDM Kausli but no action has been taken. Thereafter on
21.02.2023, the members of the Gtram Panchayat again
met the ADC who asked the SDM Kausli to take action,
the coply of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure P-
1. On that complaint the Pardhan of Gram Sudhar Sabha,
received a telephonic call on 28.02.2023, from Police
Station Parwanoo and asked the Pardhan of the Gram
Panchayat to come to the police station on next day and the
police further informed that the hotliers have also been
called. On 01.03.2023, the members of the committee
went to police station and the hotliers gave in writing that
they will not give any occasion for any further complaint in
future. On the same subject a written complaint was also
submitted to Gram Panchayat Koti Namb Block
Dharampur. Thereafter on 12.05.2022, the Gram Panchayat
called the hotleirs and requested that in future no complaint
shall come regarding this subject, the copy of compromise
is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2. Thereafter, on
20.11.2022, again a written complaint was submitted to
Panchayat on which the Gram Panchayat passed a
resiolution, the copy of which were sent to SDM Kausli
and Police Station Kausli, the copies of the same are
annexure herewith as Annexure ____. Inspite of that the
hotlier did not pay any heed and they use to play DJs till
midnight and use to serve intoxicant in their Hotels.
Thereafter, on 6th April the hooligans/ guests of these
hotels threw the three-four bottles cane of beer spoons and
menu card on the roof of the house of the Pardhan of the
Gram Panchayat, which situated beneth these hotels in the
midnight. Thereafter, the spot was got inspected by the
Panchayat Pardhan in the presence of ward members and
police on 7.4.2023, and a written complaint was again
submitted the copy of the same is annexed herewith as
Annexure… Inspite of the above stated complaint no
action had been taken by the police __________
It is further submitted that the now the
comoplaint Gram Welfare Society has no option but to
seek indulgence of this Court for taking appropriate action.
Cr. MMO No. 67 of 2023
26.04.2023:
Present: Shri. Rohit Chauhan, Advocate, vice
Shri D.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Shri Yash Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Vide order dated 23.03.2023, learned
counsel for the petitioner had sought the time for
depositing the deficient amount of the compounding
fees i.e. Rs.500/-.
Today learned vice counsel has placed on
the record the receipt bearing No,. 4008, dated
17.04.2023, amounting to Rs.500/-, which is taken on
record. Now, the total compounding fees i.e.
Rs.11,000/- (5% of the cheques amount) has been
deposited by the petitioner with the H.P. State Legal
Services Authority. The compliance affidavit has
already been filed, which is on record.
Accordingly, the petitioner has complied
with the order of Hon’ble Court dated 03.03.2023, in
letter and spirit. Therefore, no further order is required
to be passed. Be processed further.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th April, 2022
(Pritam)
It is submitted in the news clipping that matter
relating to cast based discrimination has came into light in
Chikhar School at Shimla. In the month of December, a
complaint has been made by the Principal of the School to
the Deputy Director but no action had been taken.
That this incident has come into the light when a
lower caste (Dalit) lady was appointed as mid-day-meal
worker in the school. Out of 40 children, only 20 children
used to have lunch and the other 20 children don’t take
lunch prepared by the said lady. As per the news clipping
there are two mid-day-meal worker in the School and when
the food is cooked by the other workers then all the
children used to have food.
That during lunch, the children were asked to sit
separately. As per the local inhabitants the same
arrangement is applicable to the Primary School also.
Though the matter was raised before the department but no
action had been taken till date. The teachers who had
raised this issue have been transferred to some other
school.
That the President of SMC has feigned ignorance
about such type of incident in the school, though there is
active involvement of the SMC in the working of the
school.
That schools are sacred places and such type of
incidents in the school is intolerable, which gives a wrong
message regarding teaching of discrimination between the
children
CMP No. of 2021 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
AW-1: Statement of Shri Surinder PalS/o Shri
Mohan Singh aged 57 years R/o Mona Video
Shop No. 15 Gandhi Chowk Mandi Town,
District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
28.04.2023
Stated that I have photo studio at Mandi I do
not Sumit Gulati S/o Shri Ashok Kumar. I have not
clicked any photograph on the stop. I do not remember
today that photograph Mark A-1 to A-5, were
developed in my photo studio by someone. Self stated
that the above said photographs might have been
developed in my studio in October, 2022.
Xxxxx Shri , Advocate vice Shri Ramakant
Sharma, Advocate.
I have prepared the report EX.AW-5/A, on
the basis of the report/demarcation by the revenue
officials. I have not given any prior notice in writing
to the appellants before visiting the spot. It is incorrect
that I never visited the spot and based my report only
on the basis of revenue officials.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th April, 2023
CMP No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
AW-2: Statement of Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri
Tarlok Chand, aged 55 years R/o House No.
267/12, Ram Nagar Mandi Town, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
28.04.2023
Stated that a civil dispute pertaining to the
land between me and Shri Devi Singh appellant is
going on from the year 2013. He had filed an appeal
in the Hon’ble High Court whereby vide order dated
17.04.2017, interim direction qua status quo was
ordered to be maintained by the parties, which was
subsequently confirmed on 11.07.2017. Inspite of the
stay order from the Hon’ble High Court, the appellant
forcibly raised the construction on the disputed site by
raising pillars on it for about 6-7 months ago. We did
not make any request to the appellant not to raise any
construction over the disputed land however, they
have asked us not to enter in the disputed land. I
never visited the spot, when the construction was
being raised by the appellant. Photographs Mark A-1
to A-5, were clicked by my son from his mobile
phone. The above said photographs were developed
by my son from Mona Videos at Mandi. I never
raised any illegal demand from the appellant. The
appellant has raised the construction over the suit land
inspite of status quo order of the Hon’ble Court and
thereby intentionally breached the orders of the Court.
Xxxxx Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate vice Shri
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for
non-applicant/appellant.
It is incorrect that the shops which are
visible in Mark A-1 to A-5, were already constructed
by the appellant before the stay order granted by the
Hon’ble Court. I do not know that the appellant has
raised the construction after the year 2017. Self
stated that I used to reside at a long distance from the
spot and I seldom use to visit the disputed land. It is
correct that the appellant has not raised any
construction after the year 2017. It is correct that I
have not made any complaint to any authority
regarding the construction raised by the appellant after
the year 2017. It is incorrect that I have filed a false
application just to harass the appellant. It is incorrect
that I am deposing false.
Ms. Tanu Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Raju Ram
Rahi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(j)
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th April, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
AW-1: Statement of Shri Surinder Pal S/o Shri
Mohan Singh aged 57 years R/o Mona Video
Shop No. 15 Gandhi Chowk Mandi Town,
District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
28.04.2023
Stated that I have photo studio at Mandi. I
do not know Shri Sumit Gulati S/o Shri Ashok Kumar.
I have not clicked any photograph on the stop. I do not
remember today that photograph Mark A-1 to A-5,
were developed in my photo studio by someone. Self
stated that the above said photographs might have
been developed in my studio in October, 2022.
Xxxxx Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate vice Shri
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for
non-applicant/appellant.
Opportunity given. Nil.
Ms. Tanu Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Raju Ram
Rahi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(j)
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th April, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
AW-3: Statement of Shri Sumit Gulati S/o Shri
Ashok Kumar, aged 33 years R/o House No.
267/12, Ram Nagar Mandi Town, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
28.04.2023
Stated that I have clicked the photographs,
Mark A-1 to Mark A-5 from my mobile phone and the
same were got development in Mona Videos at Mandi
Town. The appellant has constructed the shops prior
to the year 2017. However, they have not installed
shutter at that time. I have clicked the said
photographs in the month of October, 2022 at that
relevant time, the appellant was raising the fresh
construction over the shops and they have deployed
the labour, which is visible in the photographs. The
appellant has intentionally flouted the orders of the
Hon’ble High Court.
Xxxxx Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate vice Shri
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for
non-applicant/appellant.
It is incorrect that the entire construction
visible in the photographs has been done by the
appellant prior to the year 2017. It is incorrect that the
appellant has raised construction during the pendency
of the appeal in the 1 st appellate Court at Mandi. It is
correct that I am not a party in the present litigation.
Self stated that I know the entire factual position as
my father is party in the present litigation. It is correct
that no date has been mentioned on the photographs
from which it could be ascertained in which month or
year the same have been clicked. It is incorrect that I
am deposing false.
Ms. Tanu Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Raju Ram
Rahi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(j)
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th April, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 11 of 2017
28.04.2023:
Present: Shri. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate for the
applicant.
Ms. Tanu Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Raju
Ram Rahi, Advocate for non-applicant-
respondents ( No. 1(a) to 1(j).
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev
Sood, Advocate, for the non-applicant-appellant.
None for respondents No. 2,3,5 and 6..
Statement of three witnesses of the
applicant are recorded today.
Let the sole remaining witness, Shri Gulam Ali,
in the list of witness be summoned for the date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Steps, if any, be taken within a week.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th April, 2022
(Pritam)
Cr. Revision No. 131 of 202203.05.20223
Present: Shri. Vijay Kumar Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Pallvi Sharma, Advocate, vice
Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the
respondent.
As per the office report, receipt regarding
depositing of the deficient amount i.e. Rs.5,000/-
before the H.P. State Legal Services Authority Shimla,
has not been filed.
Learned vice counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that he has informed his client about the
deposit of the deficient amount, however, he has not
turned up for doing the needful. Learned vice counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the matter be listed in
the Court.
As requested, let the matter be listed
before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd May, 2023
(Pritam)
COPC No. 411 of 2021
AW-1: Statement of ASI Shri Sohan Lal, Ist Bn.
Junga, Tehsil and District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh.
On oath
18.05.2023
Stated that I have brought the summoned
record today. On 15.08.2021, a telephonic
information was received in the Police Post Karchham
from Mrs. Subodh Bisht, W/o Shri Tejwant Singh. At
the same time one another telephonic complaint was
received from Shri Rohan Bisht, pertaining to the
same incident. Shri Subodh Bisht had made a
complaint that Smt. Man Dasi was not allowing her to
pluck the apple from her orchard. Rohan Bisht also
made a complaint that Mrs. Subodh Bisht and her
children, namely Shubham and Ashwarya are
misbehaving with his mother and they are also stealing
the apples from their orchard. Accordingly, I
alongwith Head Constable Suresh Kumar and
Constable Rahul visited the spot. On inquiry, Mrs.
Subodh Bisht disclosed that she and her labour were
plucking apples from her orchard but Smt. Man Dasi
restrained her and her labour from plucking the apples
by pelting stones on them and using sticks. Mrs.
Subodh Bisht further disclosed that on the nine apples
trees, adjacent to her house, Shri Rokinder Bisht has
imbibed letter `R’ and claiming those trees to him.
She further disclosed that she had plucked 35 apple
Crates from those nine trees. Thereafter, I made an
inquiry from Smt. Man Dasi on which she disclosed
that the nine trees adjacent to the house belongs to her
and Smt. Subodh Bisht is plucking the apples illegally
from those trees. I also made an inquiry from Pardhan
Gram Panchayat Kilba (Shri Shankar Bhagat), who
was also present on the spot at that time. The Pradhan
Gram Panchayat disclosed that the said orchard is in
the co-ownership of three brother, namely Laxman
Singh, Rajwant and Tejwant Singh. He further
disclosed that it not possible to ascertain which
particular trees belong to which co-owner. Thereafter,
I called the concerned Patwari to the spot for spot
verification. The Patwari also disclosed that the said
orchard is in the co-ownership of the aforesaid three
brothers and it is difficult to ascertain which particular
chunk of land and trees belong to which co-owner.
Both the parties disclosed to me that a Civil Suit is
going on between the parties and status quo order has
been ordered to be maintained by the Court. There are
about 500-600 trees on the said orchard. As per the
parties, the trees which were down side Doghari
(house in the orchard), belongs to Tejwant Singh and
the trees up side the Doghari belongs to Rajwant
Singh. The dispute was pertaining to nine trees which
were at the level of the Doghari. On the spot, I
received a telephonic call from Police Post that
Rokinder Singh had filed a written complaint
pertaining to this dispute in the Police Post. To that
effect a GD entry No.11 dated 15.08.2021, Ex.
AW1/A. was entered. Thereafter, I requested both the
parties to maintain peace and prepared a Kalandra
under Section 107 and 150 Cr.PC. On that day in the
morning hours, Smt. Subodh Bisht had also brought
two witnesses i.e. former Pardhan of the Gram
Panchayat Shri Kuldip Singh and one Advocate Shri
Sat Pal.
Xxxxx Shri Arvind Shrama, Advocate for the
respondent.
The Rapat Number of the complaint of Smt.
Subodh is Rapat No.10, dated 15.08.2021, It is
incorrect that I went to the spot to inquire the Rapat
No.10 of Smt. Subodh Bisht. It is correct that when I
was on the spot pertaining to the inquiry of Rapat
No.10, then Rapat No.11 was entered at Police Post,
Karchham. Rohan Bisht was not on the spot at the
time when I visited the spot. I did not made any
inquiry as to ascertain where the Rohan Bisht was at
that relevant time. Shri Rohan Bisht is Assistant
District Attorney in the Prosecution Department. It is
incorrect that on the asking of Shri Rohan Bisht, we
have entered Rapat No.11 in the Police Post
Karchham. I had sent the Kalandra under Section 107
and 150 Cr.PC to SDM Office, Reckongpeo. I am not
aware of the status of the said case today, since I have
been transferred from that place. It is incorrect that I
am deposing false.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th May, 2023
(Pritam)
COPC No. 411 of 2021
18.05.2023
Present: Ms. Meera, Advocate, vice Mr. Deepak Gupta,
Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.
Shri Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Statement of ASI Sohan Lal as AW1, is
recorded today. The other witnesses Shri Rokinder
Singh and Man Dasi are not present.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant/petitioner
submits that she will produce these witnesses on self
responsibility on the next date of hearing.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent
has raised objection that the present
application/petition under order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is
not maintainable, since the order against which the
present application has been filed has been passed by
Civil Judge Senior Division, Kinour at Reckongpeo in
Civil Misc. Application No.32-6 of 2013, in Civil Suit
No. 54 of 2013 titled as Tejwant Singh versus
Rajwant Singh.
Since the question qua maintainability of the
present proceedings has been raised by learned counsel
for the respondents, therefore, let the case be listed
before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd May, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
PW-3: Statement of Shri Hukam Chand, aged 47
years, S/o Shri Sauju Ram, R/o Village Majhtyal,
P.O. Bhangrotu, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh
On oath
29.05.2023
Stated that I am working as Masson at Ner
Chowk, District Mandi, H.P. The parties to the lis are
known to me. In April 2020, I went to the shop of
Shri Ram Lal for purchasing an Almirah, then he told
me that he had purchased a building and some
construction work is required to be done in that
building. I alongwith Shri Ram Lal visited that
building where Shri Ashok Kumar was also present at
that time. Shri Ram Lal asked me to do certain
construction work in that building whereby I asked
Shri Ashok Kumar whether he has any objection qua
making the construction work in that building, then
Shri Ashok Kumar told me that he has no objection, if
the construction work is carried out in that building by
me, as Shri Ashok Kumar had already sold that
building to Shri Ram Lal. I entered into an agreement
verbally with Shri Ram Lal to lay the lentil after
demolition of the old lentil and to lay the rough floor,
for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, which includes labour
and materials. I started the work in the last week of
April 2020, and completed the entire work in last
week of May, 2020. My shattering, one bundle of
steel rods and cement bags is lying till date in that
premises since Shri Ashok Kumar had put his lock
after breaking open my lock and he had not allowed
me to enter in that premises. Shri Ram Lal had paid
the entire amount in installments to me and nothing
has been left to be taken from him as of date by me.
Due to the refusal by Shri Ashok Kumar to take my
shattering and other things lying in that building, I am
still suffering loss.
Xxxxx Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate for
the defendants.
I have studied up to 10+1. My house is
about one kilometer from the building, where I have
done the construction work. I had entered into oral
agreement with Shri Ram Lal for doing his
construction work. It is correct that in the month of
April 2020, there was spread of COVID-19 pandemic.
I had not taken any written permission from any
authority qua construction during that period. Self
stated that the police had orally allowed the
construction work at different times of the day during
that period. I did not entered into any written
agreement with any of the parties for whom I had done
the construction works. I had deployed seven-eight
labourers on the construction site of Shri Ram Lal. I
had not maintained any written record qua deployment
of the labour on that site. I cannot tell the names of
that labourers. Self stated that the different Bihari
labourers use to come on different days. I paid their
wages in cash only. I purchased the material from Ner
Chowk itself. I cannot produce any bill today. I did
not make any complaint to the police against Shri
Ashok Kumar, regarding not allowing me to lift my
material from the site. It is incorrect that neither I
visited the shop of Shri Ram Lal nor he assigned me
any construction work. It is incorrect that I did not
make any construction work on the site. It is incorrect
that no material has been left on the site. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false on the asking of Shri
Ram Lal.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th May, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
PW-4: Statement of Shri Tashi, aged 35 years,
S/o Shri Tandup Gyacho, R/o Village Surad, P.O.
Khokhan, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
29.05.2023
Stated that I am working as Branch Manager
in Indian Overseas Bank at Ner Chowk, District
Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, from 26th May, 2023. I
have brought the original requisitioned record. The
housing loan raised by Shri Ashok Kumar, against
which the property has been mortgaged was closed by
him on 8th October, 2020. The original document/
letter Mark D-2, is not available today with me nor the
copy of the same is available in the Bank record. Shri
Ashok Kumar has not availed a cash credit limit
amounting to Rs.10 lacs, against which the property
was mortgaged with the Bank. Self stated that he had
availed the housing loan from the Bank.
At this stage, a document Account Ledger
Inquiry dated 26.05.2023, brought by the witness has
been sought to be placed on record as Exhibit.
Learned counsel for the defendants has raised the
objection as to the admissibility of the document on
the ground of late production as well as the said
document is not certified as per the Bankers Book
Evidence Act.
As the objection has been raised, which can
only be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Court.
Accordingly, the matter is required to be referred to
the Hon’ble Court, qua the admissibility of the
document, which is being sought to be placed on
record. The said document is taken on record and
annexed with the record in part-B (noting part).
Hence, the cross examination is deferred.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
29th May, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
29.05.2023
Present: Mr. George, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
defendants.
Statement of Shri Hukam Chand is record as
PW-3. Shri Tashi, Branch Manager, Indian Overseas
Bank, Ner Chow, District Mandi, H.P., is also present
and examined. However, during the course of
examination in Chief, learned counsel for the plaintiff
tendered a document i.e. Account Ledger Inquiry
brought by the said witness to which learned counsel
for the defendant has raised objection qua its
admissibility. Learned counsel for the defendants has
requested the matter be referred to the Hon’ble Court
for its adjudication and appropriate orders.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted
that he will move appropriate application before the
Hon’ble Court qua the adjudication about the
admissibility of the said document within a week.
Let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble
Court after receiving the application from the plaintiff.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
29th May, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 6553 of 2020 RSA No. 602 of 2019
01.06.2023
Present: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, for the non-
Applicants.
Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit
Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 3 (a
to e) applicants.
Respondent No.2 ex-parte vide order dated
12.07.2021.
Today the case was listed before District and
Sessions Judge (L/TR) and vide his today’s order, the
Ld. District and Sessions Judge (L/TR), recused to
record evidence as the First Appeal in this matter has
been decided by him on 17.08.2019. The matter was
ordered to be listed before the undersigned for
appropriate orders.
On receiving of the file, the undersigned directed
the matter be listed before him today itself for recording
the evidence as witnesses of the applicant are present.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the witnesses present today have been send
back inadvertently.
Due to the non-availability of witnesses they
could not be examined. Let fresh PF be filed within a
week and thereafter, fresh process be issued for the
service of the applicants witnesses at Sr. No. 1 to 3,
mentioned in the list of witnesses, for the date to be fixed
by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st June, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
AW-4: Statement of Shri Manu, aged 34 years,
S/o Shri Hiru Ram, R/o Village Dholag, P.O.
Kalol, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur,
Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
14.06.2023
Stated that I am a shopkeeper and I am into
the business of photography. I also develop
photographs at my shop, which is situated at village
Kalol (Bakain), District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
On 30.01.2017, I visited the disputed site on the
asking of the applicant Shri Sarwan Kumar. I clicked
the photographs of the disputed site on that day on
the asking of Shri Sarwan Kumar from my mobile
phone. Thereafter, I develop the photographs Exhibit
AW4/A-1 to AW4/A-5 (objected to on the mode of
proof).
xxxx Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate for the
respondent.
I don’t have any shop license with regard to
photo studio. I do not have any independent photo
studio. Self stated that I have photocopier, photo
printer and other accessory to develop the
photographs in my shop. I do not have any
professional camera for clicking the photographs and I
used to take the photographs from my mobile, if some
person require my services. It is correct that I have
changed my mobile once in the year 2020. It is
correct that I have not clicked the photographs from
my present mobile. I cannot produce the mobile
phone from which I have allegedly clicked the above
said photographs. Shri Sarawan Kumar, is my uncle
(Chacha Ji) in relation. It is incorrect that I do not
know about the disputed property of the present lis.
Self stated that since the property in dispute is
belonging to our family due to which I know the entire
facts about this property. I do not know the specific
Khasra Numbers, on which the houses have been built
by the parties. No demarcation had taken place at any
point of time in my presence. It is correct that I have
clicked the photographs which has been specifically
pointed to me by the applicant. Shri Mohar Singh is
known to me. It is correct that I have not issued any
certificate pertaining to the photographs clicked
digitally from my mobile. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false on the asking of the applicant who
happens to be my uncle.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th June, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
14.06.2023
Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Sharwan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate, for the respondent.
Statement of Shri Manu is recorded as AW4.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he
will produce the applicant on the next date of hearing on
his self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar for fixing the next date for remaining applicant
witnesses.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th June, 2023
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 47 of 2019
23.06.2023
Present: Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for the
Petitioners/objectors/non-applicant.
Mr. Tarun Jeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate, for the
Respondent/applicant.
As per office report, proper solvent security
certificate has not been furnished by the
applicant/respondent in compliance to the order dated
04.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant/respondents
seeks two weeks more time for doing the needful. Let
the case be listed after two weeks on furnishing the
proper solvent security certificate as directed by the
Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rdJune, 2023
(Pritam)
Execution Petition No. 10 of 2019
23.06.2023
Present: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent.
As per the office report, steps for the summoning
of the witnesses have not been taken due to which the
summons could not be issued to the witnesses for today.
Learned Deputy Advocate General seeks some
more time for taking steps. Let the steps be taken within
one week, thereafter, the process be issued for the
service of the respondents witnesses for the date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rdJune, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS No. 13 of 2019
PW-3: Statement of Shri Deepak Saini, aged 37
Proprietor M/s Vishal Haryana Freight Carrier
Head Office Plot No.33, New Timber Market,
Transport Area Sector 26, Chandigarh (R/o
Village Sangohi, Post Office Sangoha, Tehsil and
District Karnal, Haryana-132001).
On oath
30.06.2023
Stated that I am transporter by occupation. I
do my business at Parwanoo, Chandigarh and State of
Maharashtra. My business is in the name of Vishal
Haryana Freight Carrier. Shri Subhash Chauhan,
plaintiff is known to me from the last five-six years. I
use to provide transport to his apple consignments
from Parwanoo. We use to transport his apple
consignment at different parts of the country.
Whenever, a truck is booked on behalf of consigner
we use to prepare a bilti to that effect. Three copies of
the bilti are being prepared, one of which is given to
the consigner, second copy is given to the Driver and
third copy is also handed over to the Driver to be
delivered to the consignee. The photocopies of the
bilties are prepared in my office/Firm which are Mark
P-1 to P-83. We use fill in the bilti the place from
where the consignment has been booked and the same
is/ was to be delivered. The name of the consigner
and consignee are also mentioned in the bilti.
xxxx Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the
defendants.
I am the owner of the Firm, having Branch
at Parwanoo, Chandigarh. Self stated that the main
owner of the above said Firm resides at Nasik,
Maharashtra. It is correct that I am Branch Manager
of the above stated Firm. I do not know Shri
Bhagwan Dass (Defendant No.2). I have visited
Azadpur Mandi at Delhi. I am aware that whenever a
truck enter in Azadpur Maddi a slip is issued by the
APMC at entry point of the Mandi. Probably there is
no bilti, which has been placed on record today i.e.
Mark P-1 to P-83 pertains to Azadpur Mandi. It is
incorrect that we do not keep the record of the bilties
which are issued to the parties. Self stated that we use
to keep the record for one-two years. It is correct that
I have not brought any record pertaining to the bilti
Mark P-1 to P-83. I came to know about the present
case two years ago. Plaintiff has not disclosed
anything to me prior to the filing of the present case.
The copy of the bilti is issued to the Driver so that he
can obtain receiving of the consignment from the
consignee and he should not have any problem in
receiving freight. It is correct that in Mark P-1 to P-83
there is no signature of the consignee pertaining to
receiving of the consignment. The driver do not use to
deliver his copy to our Firm. It is correct that in all the
bilti i.e. Mark P-1 to P-83, the name of Bhagwan Dass
(defendants) has not been mentioned as consignee.
Self stated that we use to right abbreviation in the
name of consignee at the instance of the plaintiff.
However, I do not know the proper full form of the
abbreviations, we use to right in the bilties. I came
here today to adduce my evidence on the asking of
plaintiff. I came to know that I have been cited as
witness in the present case. It is correct that I do not
know anything about the dealings between the parties
to the lis.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
30th June, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS NO. 13 of 2019
30.06.2023
Present: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Ravinder Malik alongwith Mr. Kartik,
learned counsel for the defendants.
Statement of Shri Deepak Saini is recorded as
PW3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks some
time to produce the remaining plaintiff witnesses
including plaintiff. Let same be produced on self
responsibility on the next date of hearing to be fixed
by the Additional Registrar (Judicial)
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
30th June, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS NO. 11 of 2019
14.07.2023
Present: Mr. Shivalik Bhaik, Advocate, vice Ms. Shalini
Thakur, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Hitesh Thakur, Advocate, for defendants.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff has
submitted that due to bad weather condition and
blockade of roads at different places, the plaintiff
witnesses could not appear to adduce their evidence
today. However, learned vice counsel for the
plaintiff has submitted that on the next date of
hearing they will produce the witnesses at his slef
responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date for
remaining plaintiff’s evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Revision No. 266 of 2021
14.07.2023
Present: Mr. Pavinder Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks one
week’s time to file compliance affidavit in pursuance
to the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Court.
Let the case be listed on 25.07.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014
21.07.2023
Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri H.S. Upadhaya, Advocate, for defendant/
counter claimant.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted
that PW-3, Shri Anup Kumar, could not come to the
Court today for his cross examination due to the
blockade of road at different places as he has to
come from Delhi. Learned counsel for the plaintiff
further submitted that he will produce PW-3 on his
self responsibility on the next date of hearing.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of plaintiffs
evidence/cross examination of PW-3.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21st July, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Revision No. 266 of 2021
25.07.2023
Present: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioner-applicant.
None for the respondent
As per office report, compliance affidavit has
been filed by the applicant-petitioner. Learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted he had
already deposited 10% of cheque amount i.e.,
Rs.5000/- with H.P. State Legal Service Authority,
Shimla, vide Receipt No. 3881, on behalf of the
petitioner-applicant and the receipt to the same had
already been placed on record, which is at Page No.
53 of the case file.
Since the applicant has complied the order
dated 19.04.2022, therefore, no further order is
required to be passed.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 78 of 2016
27.07.2023
Present: Mr. Vikas Deep, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
defendant.
As per office report, process fee and list of
witnesses have been filed but the diet money has not
been deposited for summoning the plaintiff’s
witnesses. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that he will produce the plaintiff on its own
responsibility, however, he will deposit the diet
money for the other plaintiff’s witnesses within a
week.
Let the diet money be deposited within a week
and the case be listed for recording the statement of
the plaintiff on 22.09.2023. The other witnesses as
mentioned in the list of witnesses will be summoned
later on.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Revision No. 268 of 2021
25.07.2023
Present: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioner-applicant.
None for the respondent
As per office report, compliance affidavit has
been filed by the applicant-petitioner. Learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted he had
already deposited 10% of cheque amount i.e.,
Rs.5000/- with H.P. State Legal Service Authority,
Shimla, vide Receipt No. 3883, on behalf of the
petitioner-applicant and the receipt to the same had
already been placed on record, which is at Page No.
53 of the case file.
Since the applicant has complied the order
dated 19.04.2022, therefore, no further order is
required to be passed.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 47 of 2019
26.07.2023
Present: Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for the
petitioners/objector/non-applicant
Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Tarun
Jeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate, for the
respondent/ applicant.
As per office report, documents pertaining to
solvent security has been furnished by the learned
counsel for the applicant, but perusal of the same
shows that the bonds qua solvent security has not
been furnished by any of the authorized
representatives of the Society of which the
documents pertaining to the property has been
placed on record.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant seeks
one week’s time to do the needful. Let the case be
listed on 07.08.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 79 of 2016
27.07.2023
Present: Mr. Vikas Deep, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
defendant.
As per office report, process fee and list of
witnesses have been filed but the diet money has not
been deposited for summoning the plaintiff’s
witnesses. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that he will produce the plaintiff on its own
responsibility, however, he will deposit the diet
money for the other plaintiff’s witnesses within a
week.
Let the diet money be deposited within a week
and the case be listed for recording the statement of
the plaintiff on 22.09.2023. The other witnesses as
mentioned in the list of witnesses will be summoned
later on.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 77 of 2016
27.07.2023
Present: Mr. Vikas Deep, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
defendant.
As per office report, process fee and list of
witnesses have been filed but the diet money has not
been deposited for summoning the plaintiff’s
witnesses. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that he will produce the plaintiff on its own
responsibility, however, he will deposit the diet
money for the other plaintiff’s witnesses within a
week.
Let the diet money be deposited within a week
and the case be listed for recording the statement of
the plaintiff on 22.09.2023. The other witnesses as
mentioned in the list of witnesses will be summoned
later on.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th July, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2019
28.07.2023
Present: Mr. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for
the appellant.
None for the respondent.
As per the order of Hon’ble Court dated
06.07.2023, the serving officer was directed to appear
before the undersigned today i.e. on 28.07.2023, to get
his statement recorded in respect of proclamation
proceedings conducted by him.
Learned Deputy Advocate General has shown
correspondence dated 23/24 June, 2023, and stated that
they have sent the above said letter to the Superintendent
of Police, Shimla and informed him/her that the matter
has been adjourned for 06.07.2023. But learned Deputy
Advocate General has failed to show that they have
made any correspondence to the concerned authority or
to the serving office in compliance to order dated
06.07.2023 of the Hon’ble Court. Therefore, it appears
that no information has been sent to the serving officer
or the authority under which he is serving , regarding
order dated 06.07.2023, due to which he might not have
put appearance for getting his statement recorded today
before the undersigned.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before
the Hon’ble Court on the date already fixed by the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th July, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 432 of 2018
28.07.2023
Present: Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, for appellant.
Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 1
(a) and 1 (b)
In compliance to the order dated 28.07.2023 of the
Hon’ble Court, the parties to the lis put appearance
before the undersigned and have appended their
signature on the application under Order 23 Rule 3, read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CMP
No. 6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018). The parties
have been identified by the respective counsel. The
copies of Aadhar Cards have also been placed on record.
Statement of the parties have also been recorded, which
is also appended herewith.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court on
the date already fixed by the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th July, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 432 of 2018
Statement of Shri Ramesh Thakur, aged 77 years
S./o Shri Krishan Chand Thakur, R/o Shanti Vihar
Kasumpti, P.O. Kasumpti, Tehsil and District
Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Statement of Shri Balak Ram, S./o Shri Ramesh,
aged 42 years R/o Vikas Nagar, P.O. Kasumpti,
Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Stated that I have entered into the
compromise with the appellant. The terms and
conditions have already been mentioned in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and the same
are agreeable to me. I have entered into the said
compromise voluntarily without any coercion and
undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
30th June, 2023
(Pritam)
and the same are agreeable to me. I have entered into
the said compromise voluntarily without any coercion
and undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
30th June, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 432 of 2018
Statement of Shri Balak Ram, S./o Shri Ramesh,
aged 42 years R/o Vikas Nagar, P.O. Kasumpti,
Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Stated that I have entered into the
compromise with the appellant. The terms and
conditions have already been mentioned in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC (CMP No.
6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018) and the same
are agreeable to me. I have entered into the said
compromise voluntarily without any coercion and
undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th July, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 432 of 2018
Statement of Shri Dinesh, S./o Shri Ramesh, aged
37 years R/o Vikas Nagar, P.O. Kasumpti, Tehsil
and District Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Stated that I have entered into the
compromise with the appellant. The terms and
conditions have already been mentioned in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC (CMP No.
6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018) and the same
are agreeable to me. I have entered into the said
compromise voluntarily without any coercion and
undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
30th June, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 432 of 2018
Statement of Shri Ramesh Thakur, S./o Shri
Krishan Chand aged 77 years R/o Shanti Vihar,
P.O. Kasumpti, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Stated that I have entered into the
compromise with the respondents. The terms and
conditions have already been mentioned in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC (CMP No.
6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018) and the same
are agreeable to me. I have entered into the said
compromise voluntarily without any coercion and
undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th July, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 433 of 2018
28.07.2023
Present: Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, for appellant.
Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 1
(a) and 1 (b)
In compliance to the order dated 28.07.2023 of the
Hon’ble Court, the parties to the lis put appearance
before the undersigned and have appended their
signature on the application under Order 23 Rule 3, read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CMP
No. 6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018). The parties
have been identified by the respective counsel. The
copies of Aadhar Cards have also been placed on record.
Statement of the parties have also been recorded, which
is also appended herewith.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court on
the date already fixed by the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th July, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 433 of 2018
Statement of Shri Balak Ram, S./o Shri Ramesh,
aged 42 years R/o Vikas Nagar, P.O. Kasumpti,
Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Stated that I have entered into the
compromise with the appellant. The terms and
conditions have already been mentioned in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC (CMP No.
6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018) and the same
are agreeable to me. I have entered into the said
compromise voluntarily without any coercion and
undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th July, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 433 of 2018
Statement of Shri Dinesh, S./o Shri Ramesh, aged
37 years R/o Vikas Nagar, P.O. Kasumpti, Tehsil
and District Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Stated that I have entered into the
compromise with the appellant. The terms and
conditions have already been mentioned in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC (CMP No.
6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018) and the same
are agreeable to me. I have entered into the said
compromise voluntarily without any coercion and
undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
30th June, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 433 of 2018
Statement of Shri Ramesh Thakur, S./o Shri
Krishan Chand aged 77 years R/o Shanti Vihar,
P.O. Kasumpti, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
On oath
28.07.2023
Stated that I have entered into the
compromise with the respondents. The terms and
conditions have already been mentioned in the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC (CMP No.
6926 of 2023 in RSA No. 432 of 2018) and the same
are agreeable to me. I have entered into the said
compromise voluntarily without any coercion and
undue influence.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th July, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
AW-3: Statement of HC Inder Singh, No. 23, TCP
Barrier Tunnuhatti, District Chamba,
Himachal Pradesh
On Oath
04.08.2023
Stated that in the year 2019, I was posted as
Head Constable at Police Post Daradha, District
Chamba. On 6.11.2019, I received a complaint from
Shri Ashok Kumar (applicant), Mark A-7. After
receiving the above said complaint Mark A-7, I
entered the DDR No.9, dated 06.11.2019 at Police
Post Daradha, copy of which is Mark A-9. I have not
brought the original record since the same has not
been asked to be produced.
xxxxx By Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior
Advocate with Shri Rohit, Advocate for
respondent/non-applicant.
It is correct that before making the
complaint by Shri Ashok Kumar on 06.11.2019, an
FIR No. 295 of 2019, dated 05.11.2019, had already
been lodged against Shri Ashok Kumar under Section
452, 427, 504, 506 and 34 IPC. It is correct that
challan qua the above said FIR has already been
submitted in the Court.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
At this stage, learned senior counsel for the
applicant wants to re-examine this witness on the new
facts which has been adduced by him in his cross
examination. The opposing counsel has stated that he
has no objection to that effect, accordingly, the
witness is allowed to be re-examined by the learned
senior counsel for the applicant.
I have not brought the original record. Self
stated that I have brought the copy of the DDR
alongwith me to re-fresh my memory. It is incorrect
that I am stating false without any basis and on the
asking of the other party. It is incorrect that I have
been approached by the other party due to which I am
deposing false.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th August, 2023.
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
Statement of Shri Karan Sharma, Advocate,
for the applicant
Without Oath
04.08.2023
Stated that I do not want to examine Shri
Ajay Kumar, S/o Shri Tilak Raj, Proprietor Jalpa
Printer, Village Devidehra, Tehsil Dalhousie, District
Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, being won over,
therefore, I give him up.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th August, 2023.
(Pritam)
RSA No. 223 of 2014
04.08.2023
Present: Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Karan Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit,
Advocate, for the non-applicant.
Statement of HC Inder Singh has been recorded as
AW-3. Learned counsel or the applicant vide his
separate statement has given up Shri Ajay Kumar.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he
will bring the witnesses namely Shri Tushar Sharma and
Shri Anirudh Kumar, on their own responsibility on the
next date of hearing. There is no need to issue the
summons to the aforesaid witnesses.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of remaining
applicants evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th August, 2023
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 47 of 2019
07.08.2023
Present: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for
the Petitioners/objectors/non-applicant.
Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. T.S. Bhogal,
Senior Advocate, for the Respondent/applicant.
As per office report, bond qua solvent security has
not been furnished. Learned vice counsel for the
respondents-applicant seeks time as the original counsel
is undergoing treatment at PGI, Chandigarh, due to
which needful could not be done.
Learned vice counsel further submits that
she requires at least three weeks time to do the needful.
Let the case be listed on 24.08.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th August, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 118 of 2019
09.08.2023
Present: Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for the defendants.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that due
to bad weather and blockade of road at different places,
the plaintiff’s witnesses who have to come from
Jharkhand and Bihar could not come to the Court today
for adducing their evidence.
Learned counsel further submits that he will bring
the plaintiff’s witnesses on self responsibility. Learned
counsel further requested that let the plaintiff be first
examined and the other two witnesses will be examined
thereafter. Learned vice counsel for defendant has no
objection to that effect. There is no need to send the
summons to any of the witnesses.
Therefore, let the plaintiff be produced on the next
date of hearing, to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial), for recording the statement of the plaintiff.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th August, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No.80 of 2010
14.8.2023
Present: None.
Vide order dated 14.7.2023, additional issues have been
framed by the Hon’ble Court and the plaintiff has been allowed to
adduce his evidence. As per the office report, steps for the summoning
of the plaintiff’s evidence have been taken. Let the summons be issued
for the service of the plaintiff’s evidence for the date to be fixed by
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14.08.2023
(Chander)
CMP No.6553 of 2020 in RSA No. 602 of 2019
AW-1: Statement of LC Pratibha, No.1067, PAR,
Vikasnagar, Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
17.08.2023
Stated that I am posted as LC at PAR
Vikasnagar from the last five years. I have brought the
requisitioned record. On the information received
Police Help Line from Deep Chauhan through his
Mobile No.76500-79259, Rapat No.4 was entered at
PAR Vikasnagar on dated 21.6.2020, which is
Ext.AW-1/A. After entering Ext.AW-1/A, the Police
Party headed by HC Rameshwar along with Ct. Ajit,
No.1486 was sent to the spot to verify the dispute in
question. After visiting the spot, the Police Party got
entered the Rapat No.07, qua arrival of the Police
Party at Police Station, which is Ext.AW1/B. The
Rapat No.07 was entered by HHC Beena, No.1388.
(Original seen and returned).
xxxxx By Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate for
respondent/non-applicant.
As per the record, Rapat No.4 was entered
at PAR Vikasnagar at about 8.55 AM and the Police
Party was sent to the spot immediately. It is correct
that I have not entered the Rapat Nos.4 and 7
personally.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
17th August, 2023.
(Chander)
CMP No.6553 of 2020 in RSA No. 602 of 2019
AW-2: Statement of HC Rameshwar Singh,
presently posted in State CID, Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
17.08.2023
Stated that in the year 2020, I was posted as
HC at Police Assistant Room, Vikasnagar. On
receiving the complaint from Sh. Vijay Chauhan and
Sh. Deep Ram, a Rapat No.4 (Ext.AW-1/A) was
entered at PAR Vikasnagar. Thereafter, I along with
Ct. Ajit Kumar, No.1486 went to the spot for
investigation. On the spot, I met complainant Vijay
Chuahan and the other party Gopi Chand. Sh. Vijay
Chauhan gave one written complaint Ext.AW-2/A to
me on the spot and informed me that Sh. Gopi Chand
is raising the unauthorized construction on the spot
inspite of the stay order from the Hon’ble High Court.
I noticed that some labourers were doing the welding
work on the parking which had already raised on the
spot. In inquired from Sh. Gopi Chand regarding
welding work being done on the spot then he informed
me that the civil litigation is already going on between
them since 2009. Sh. Gopi Chand further informed me
that he had already won his case in the District Courts.
He further informed me that after the winning of the
case, the Khasra Nos. 1251 and 1247 have been
recorded in the revenue record in his name. He further
informed me that Sh. Deep Chand and Vijay Chauhan
had filed appeal against the District Court’s order in
the Hon’ble High Court in which he has obtained the
stay in the appeal against Deep Chand and Vijay
Chauhan. Both the parties failed to produce the copy
of stay order at that time. Thereafter, I recorded the
statement of Sh. Gopi Chand which is Ext.AW-2/B.
Ext.AW/1/A and Ext.AW/2/B (in original produced by
LC Pratibha-AW1) seen and returned. After due
completion of the investigation on the spot, on my
return, I got entered Rapat No.07, (Ext.AW-1/B) at
PAR Vikasnagar.
xxxxx By Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate for
respondent/non-applicant.
It is correct that I was not aware about the
Khasra numbers in dispute. Self-stated that the same
were informed to me by the parties present on the
spot. It is correct that I have not brought along with
me any revenue officials for confirming the Khasra
numbers on the spot. It is correct that no RCC
construction was being raised by the respondent Gopi
Chand at the time when I visited the spot. It is correct
that only repair/welding work was being done by
Sh. Gopi Chand at that time. It is correct that I have
not recorded the statement of other party or any other
person present on the spot at that time.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
17th August, 2023.
(Chander)
RSA No. 602 of 2019
17.08.2023
Present: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate for the non-
applicant.
Statement of LC Pratibha and HC Rameshwar
Singh are recorded as AW-1 and AW-2 respectively.
As per the office report, the other witness Sh.
Chaman Lal is duly served. The learned counsel for
the applicant has submitted that due to the death in
his relation, he could not come to the Court today.
Let the witness namely Chaman Lal be again
summoned on taking the steps within seven days.
The learned counsel for the applicant further
submitted that he will produce the applicants Sh.
Vijay Chauhan and Deep Chauhan on their own
responsibility. Let the case be listed before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of
remaining AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
17th August, 2023
(Chander)
Civil Suit No. 4085 of 2013
21.08.2023
Present: Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate vice Mr. Janesh
Gupta, Advocate, for the defendant.
As per office report steps for summoning PWs
have not been taken. Learned counsel for the
plaintiffs seeks some more time for taking the steps.
Let the steps be taken within one week
thereafter the process be issued for service of
plaintiff witnesses for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21st August, 2023
(Pritam)
CMPMO No. 4854 of 2019 in RSA No.164 of 2019
23.08.2023
Present: Mr. Sumit Sharma, vice counsel for Mr.
Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate for the
applicant/appellant.
Mr. Het Ram Thakur, learned vice counsel for
the respondent.
The learned vice counsel for the applicant has
submitted that the remaining AWs i.e., Sh. Sunil
Kumar could not be produced in the Court today for
adducing his evidence due to the inclement weather
and blockade of the roads at different places. He
further submitted that on the next date of hearing, the
applicant will produce Sh. Sunil Kumar on its own
responsibility.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the remaining AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd August, 2023
(Chander)
Arb. Case No. 47 of 2019
24.08.2023
Present: Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for the
petitioners/objector/non-applicant.
Mr. T.S. Bhogal, Advocate, for the
respondent/applicant.
Learned for the respondent/applicant has
moved an application for furnishing the solvent
security bonds in compliance to the order dated
04.05.2022. The security bond of Shri Ashutosh
Jhina S/o Shri J.C. Jhina has been furnished
alongwith the copies of Jamabandies for the year
2016-2017 obtained on 05.07.2023 alongwith the
certificate of the President of Pine Breeze Co-
operative Society, list of share capital and deposit of
the share holders in the Society as well as reports of
the Patwari of the concerned Patwar Circle and the
circle rates of the land in the concerned area. As per
the Jamabandies the land comprised in Khata Nos.
22,23 and 24, Khatauni No. 30,33 and 34, belongs to
the Pine Breeze Coperative Society. As per the
certificate issued by the President Pine Breeze Co-
operative House Society, Shri Ashutosh Jhina is the
Member of the said society and is share holder in the
land mentioned in the above said Jamabandies to the
extent of 1/12 share. Further, as per the certificate
Shri Ashutosh Jhina is holder of the land measuring
2 Bighas and 6 Biswas and the value of the same is
Rs.1,05,95,554.80 according to the value calculated
on the basis of Govt. circle rates 2023-2024. As per
Arb. Case No. 47 of 2019
the note mentioned in the Jamabandies annexed with
the application, the said land is free from all
encumbrances. Shri Ashutosh Jhina respondent/
applicant has been duly identified by Shri T.S.
Bhogal, Advocate. In the affidavit Shri Ashutosh
Jhina has deposed that his share in the above said
property is free from all encumbrance as of date and
he will not transfer or alienate the above said
property in any manner till the final disposal of the
present petition.
I have gone through the order dated
04.05.2022, 11.04.2023 and 04.05.2023 and the
documents annexed with the application for
furnishing the solvent security bonds. Accordingly,
the solvent security bonds furnished by the
respondent/applicant is duly attested and accepted by
me.
Let the matter be processed further in
compliance to the order dated 04.05.2022 of the
Hon’ble Court. All the papers be tagged with the
file.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th August, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2019
Statement of HHC Subhash Chand No. 779,
Police Post Taklech, Police Station Rampur,
District Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
24.08.2023
Stated that on 23.02.2023, the MC, Police
Post Taklech, handed over me proclamation notice for
affixing the same at some conspicuous place of
Village Khurbai in which Raj Kumar used to reside.
In compliance to that I affixed the copy of
proclamation at Bus Stop Khorbai and the
proclamation was read over to the general public
present at that time in the presence of Sushma Devi
and Poma Devi. On the same day, i.e. on 23.02.2023,
the second copy of proclamation notice was affixed at
Gram Panchayat Kuhal in the presence of Up-Pardhan
Mahender Singh and the same was read over to the
general public present there at that time. The
signatures of Up-Pardhan were obtained on the copy
of proclamation. Further, on 24.02.2023, the third
copy of the proclamation notice was affixed on the
Notice Board of the Session Court Rampur, District
Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2019
Shimla, H.P., in the presence of HASI Bhupesh No.
1267 and the signature of HASI was obtained on the
copy of the proclamation notice. Thereafter,
affixation of proclamation notices at the respective
places, I send the compliance report to the Police
Station Rampur.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
24th August, 2023.
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2019
24.08.2023
Present: Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for the
appellant.
None for the respondent.
Statement of HHC Subhash Chand, Serving
Officer, who has published the proclamation is
recorded today.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court
on the date already fixed.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th August, 2023
(Pritam)
Ex. Pet. No. 27 of 2010
24.08.2023: Present: None for the petitioner/DH
Shri Het Ram, Advocate vice
Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for
respondent/JDs.
Steps for issuing proclamation and
warrant of sale have been taken. Let the warrant of
sale be issued as per the following schedule:-
I. Date of Proclamation – 15.09.2023
2. Sale of property – 16.10.2023
3. Report – 01.11.2023
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th August, 2022
(Pritam)
Ex. Pet. No. 27 of 2010
25.08.2023: Present: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Amit Himalvi, vice Mr. M.S.
Katoch, Advocate, for defendants No.
1 and 2.
As per office report summons issued for
the service of PWs mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 3 in the
list of witnesses are still awaited. Learned counsel for
the plaintiff submits that none of the witnesses has
appeared or contacted him today. Learned counsel
further submits that he will bring the plaintiff on the
next date of hearing for adducing his evidence on self
responsibility. Let one witness at Sl. No. 1 in the list
of witnesses be also summoned for the said date on old
PF.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of the plaintiff’s
evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25th August, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 96 of 2010
26.08.2023: Present: None.
It appears that today the case has been
inadvertently fixed for evidence since it is Saturday
and non-working of the Court.
As per office report, summons issued to
the additional PW for today is still awaited. Let fresh
summons be issued for service of additional PW on
the old PF for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th August, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No.10109 of 2020 in RSA No. 453 of 2008
28.08.2023: Present: Mr. Shekhar Badola, learned vice
counsel for the respondent/ applicant.
Mr. Tarun Brakta, learned vice
counsel for appellant/non-applicant.
As per office report the list of witnesses,
PF, road and diet money has not been deposited for
summoning the witnesses. The learned vice counsel
for the applicant/respondent seeks two weeks’ time for
taking the steps.
Let the steps be taken within two weeks.
Thereafter, the process be issued for the service of
AWs, for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th August, 2022
(Chander)
Civil Suit No. 45 of 2015
29.08.2023
Present: Ms. Tanu Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay
Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate, for defendants
No. 1 and 3.
None for defendant No.2.
As per office report, steps for summoning of
the plaintiff’s witnesses have not been taken, therefore,
the summons could not be issued. Neither the plaintiff
nor any witness is present today.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks some
more time to take steps for PWs. As per office report, list
of witnesses has been filed but the plaintiff has neither
filed the process fee nor deposited road and diet money
despite four opportunities granted by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial). Therefore, the matter be listed before
the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
29th August, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 24 of 2016
PW-1. Statement of Shri Chuni Lal, Senior
Assistant Electrical Sub Division, Sanjauli,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
31.08.2023
Stated that I am posted as Senior Assistant
in the office of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Sub
Division Sanjauli, Shimla from the year 2004. I have
brought the requisitioned record. The Account No. of
electricity connection of Smt. Vidya w/o Shri Tarlok
Chand bearing contact No. SSK1000029. the said
electricity meter is installed in Kothi Vakil Khanna,
Shankli, Shimla-1. The file pertaining to the said
account number of Smt. Vidya Devi is not traceable in
our office due to the outbreak of the fire in our office
in the year 1988. I have brought the certificate
pertaining to the destruction of record which is Ex.
PW1/A., and the same has been duly issued by the
Assistant Engineer. (Objected to on the ground of
mode of proof). The Assistant Engineer Shri Parmod
Sharma has signed Ex.PW1/A, in red Circle-A. He is
competent to issue this certificate. I have also brought
the certified copy of the Ledger Account EX. PW1/B,
pertaining to the electricity connection of aforesaid
Vidya Devi. (objected to on the ground of mode of
proof). Ex.PW1/B has been issued by Assistant
Engineer City Electrical Sub Division under his
signature. The signature of the Assistant Engineer
duly identified by me which is in red Circle -A (two
leaves). The application as well as sanction order
have been burnt during the outbreak of the fire in the
year 1988.
The application and the sanction order as
well as file pertaining to the installation of the
electricity connection in favour of Shri Tarlok Chand
has also been burnt in the said fire. The certificate
pertaining to the destruction of the said file is Ex.
PW1/A. I have brought the Ledger Account
Ex.PW1/C duly issued by the Assistant Engineer
pertaining to Account Number DBAL1000467,
installed in building known as Kothi Vakil Khana
Shankli, Shimla-1.
I have brought the copy of application,
Service Connection order dated 28.08.1997 of
electricity connection pertaining to Shri Rakesh
Kumar S/o Shri Tarlok Chand bearing Account No.
1111400497, ID No. 100001133373, installed in
building known as Kothi Valik Khaana, Shankli,
Shimla-1. I have not brought the original record
pertaining to the above said copies, which are Mark-X
(application two leaves), Test Report Mark Y and
Sanction Order Mark Z alongwith Estimate Mark Z1
as well as NOC Mark Z2. I have also brought the
certified copy Ex. PW1/D (six leaves) of the Ledger
Account of electricity connection pertaining to Shri
Rakesh Kumar. The electricity bills of the above
mentioned electricity connections of Vidya Devi,
Rakesh Kumar and Tarlok Chand are Mark X-1 to X-
11.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for
the plaintiff submits that the recording of the statement
of witness be deferred as the objection has been raised
by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant No.1,
as the original record has not been brought.
Accordingly, the statement of this witness is deferred
for today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2023.
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 24 of 2016
PW-2. Statement of Ms. Babli Dharta,
Registration Clerk, O/o Sub Registrar
Shimla, (Urban), D.C. Office, Shimla-1.
On Oath
31.08.2023
Stated that I am working as Registration
Clerk in the Office of Sub Registrar, Shimla (Urban),
D.C. Office, Shimla from the year 2018. I have
brought the requisitioned record. As per the record
brought by me the Sale Deed having Registration No.
141, was registered in our office on 28.06.1996,
certified copy of which is Ex. PW2/A. (Objected to on
the ground of mode of proof). As per my record, Ex-
PW2/A is true and correct copy issued by the Sub
Registrar (Urban), Shimla. I have also brought the
original record pertaining to Sale Deed No. 307, dated
15.12.1992, duly registered in the office of Sub
Registrar (Urban), Shimla. As per my record the
certified copy of the said Sale Deed is Ex. PW2/B.
(Objected to on the ground of mode of proof). As per
my record, Ex-PW2/B is true and correct copy issued
by the Sub Registrar (Urban), Shimla.
xxx xxx xxx By Shri Neeraj Gupta,
Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri,
Advocate, for defendant No.1.
It is correct that I am not aware who was
Sub Registrar Shimla (Urban) on 28.06.1996 and
15.12.1992. At the time of registration of Sale Deed
two original copies are being submitted in the
Registration Office, out of which one copy is retained
and pasted in the concerned Book kept in the
Registration Office and the second copy is returned to
the parties after due registration. I have brought the
second office copies of the Sale Deeds, which were
kept in our office at the time of registration. It is
correct that when the above said sale deed were
registered in the office of Sub Registrar Shimla
(Urban), I was not present in that office at that time. I
cannot identified the signatures of the then Sub
Registrar, who had appended his signature on the
above said sale deed. It is correct that I also cannot
identified the signature of the person who has certified
the copies on the above said sale deeds.
xxx xxx xxx By Shri Vaibhav Tanwar,
Advocate for defendant No.2
I adopt the cross examination conducted by
defendant No.1.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2023.
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 24 of 2016
PW-3. Statement of Shri Durgesh Kumar,
O/o Architectural Branch, Municipal
Corporation, Shimla.
On Oath
31.08.2023
Stated that I am working as Junior
Engineer in the Office of Architectural Branch of
Municipal Corporation, Shimla from the year 2021. I
have not brought the entire original record since the
original file is not traceable in our office as of today.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff
prays to defer this witness due to the non-availability
of the original record.
Accordingly, the witness is deferred for
today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2023.
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 24of 2016
31.08.2023
Present: Shri Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Khem Raj, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Rinki Kashmiri for defendant No.1.
Shri Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate for
defendant No.2.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks
exemption from examining the plaintiff at the first
instance to which the learned opposing has no objection.
Statement of Ms. Babli Dharta, Registration
Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Shimla (Urban)
recorded today as PW-2. PW-1, Shri Chuni Lal, Senior
Assistant from the office of Assistant Engineer, Sub
Division Sanjauli, Shimla and PW-3, Shri Durgesh
Kumar, Junior Engineer from the office Architectural
Branch, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, are deferred due
to non-availability of the original record today. PW1 and
PW3 are deferred for today and be summoned on the next
date of hearing to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) on taking fresh steps within fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 146 of 2022
31.08.2023
Present: Shri Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, for
the plaintiff.
Shri Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the
defendants.
As per the office report, replication to the
written statement on behalf of the plaintiff is still awaited.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has filed
replication alongwith the additional documents on the same
day i.e., on 04.08.2023. However, due to some objections
raised by the Registry it was still pending in the Scrutiny
Section. He further submits that now he has removed the
objections and has re-filed the replication.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that
since some additional documents have been furnished
alongwith the replication, therefore, he will do the
admission/denial on the next date of hearing, when all the
documents will come on record.
Since the actual date has been given by the
Hon’ble Court for admission and denial of the documents,
therefore, the undersigned has no authority to extend or
grant the time for admission and denial of the documents
filed by the parties, therefore, the matter be listed before
the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014
01.09.2023
Present: Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Shri Shivam Vashishth, Advocate, vice Shri
H.C. Upadhaya, Advocate, for the defendant.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
due to inadvertence he forgot to inform his client today’s
date due to which he could not come to the Court for
adducing his evidence. He further submits that he will
positively inform his client about the next date of hearing
and he will appear on the next date of hearing on self
responsibility.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of plaintiff’s
evidence/cross examination.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 4086 of 2013
01.09.2023
Present: Shri Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, vice Shri Janesh
Gupta, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the
defendants.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that
due to inadvertence he forgot to inform his clients about the
date of the evidence due to which they could not come to
the Court for adducing their evidence. He further submits
that they will be informed positively about the next date of
hearing and further undertake to produce them on the next
date of hearing.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of defendent’s
evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 6 of 2011
04.09.2023
Present: Shri Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Khem Raj, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Shri Het Ram Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev
Sood, Advocate, for defendants No. 4, 5 and
6.
Learned vice counsel for defendants No.4 to 6
has submitted that the witness Ms. Poonam, who has come
from the Court of Rent Controller, Shimla has not brought
the requisitioned record as the particulars furnished by the
defendants qua that witness are wrong. Learned vice
counsel for defendants No.4 to 6, seeks time for furnishing
the correct particular of the witness who has to bring the file
pertaining to Rent Case No. 341 of 2014 within fifteen days.
Request is considered and allowed.
The witness Ms. Poonam is discharged
accordingly. Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of defendants
evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 6 of 2011
PW-3. Statement of Shri Durgesh Kumar,
O/o Architectural Branch, Municipal
Corporation, Shimla.
On Oath
31.08.2023
Stated that I am working as Junior
Engineer in the Office of Architectural Branch of
Municipal Corporation, Shimla from the year 2021. I
have not brought the entire original record since the
original file is not traceable in our office as of today.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff
prays to defer this witness due to the non-availability
of the original record.
Accordingly, the witness is deferred for
today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2023.
(Pritam)
OMP(M) 42 of 2016 in RSA No. 4272 of 2013
05.09.2023
Present: Shri Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Shri Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr.
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for non-applicants
Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for non-
applicant respondent No.4.
Shri Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate, vice Shri
Suneet Goel, Advocate, for non-applicant-
respondent No.5.
One witness Shri Hira Lal is present today but
learned vice counsel for the non-applicant seeks
adjournment on the ground that the original senior counsel
is out of station. Learned counsel for the applicants has no
objection in case the adjournment is granted. Accordingly,
the matter is adjourned for today for the AWs.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
she will bring sole remaining witness Shri Hira Lal on the
next date of hearing for adducing his evidence.
As per the list of witnesses the other witnesses
have already been examined. Let the case be listed before
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing next date for
remaining AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 127 of 2022
06.09.2023
Present: None.
As per the office report, steps for the plaintiffs
ex-parte evidence have not been taken, due to which the
summons could not be issued. The perusal of case file
shows that three opportunities for taking the have already
been granted to the plaintiffs but needful has not been done.
Let the case be listed in the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2022
06.09.2023
Present: None.
As per the office report, steps for the plaintiffs
ex-parte evidence have not been taken, due to which the
summons could not be issued. The perusal of case file
shows that three opportunities for taking steps have already
been granted to the plaintiffs but needful has not been done.
Let the case be listed in the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 2 of 2020
08.09.2023
Present: Shri Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Ms. Sharutika Chauhan, Advocate vice
Shri. Dheeraj Vashishth, Advocate, for the
defendants.
As per the office report, steps for summoning
the plaintiff’s witnesses have not been taken. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff seeks some more time for taking the
steps.
Let the same be taken within fifteen days.
Thereafter process be issued for the service plaintiff’s
witnesses for 02.11.2023 and not more than two witnesses
be summoned on the said date.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2014
08.09.2023
Present: Shri Karun Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Karan
Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, for defendant
No.1.
As per office report, steps for summoning of
the remaining plaintiff’s witnesses have not been taken due
to which the summons could not be issued.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff prays
fifteen days time to do the needful. Allowed. Needful be
done within fifteen days. Thereafter, the process be issued
for service of remaining PWs for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th September, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1533 of 2019 in RFA
11.09.2023
Present: Shri Visshvinder Singh, Advocate, vice Shri
Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel
for respondent No.2.
Learned vice counsel for the applicants submits
that no AWs are present today and seeks some more time to
produce the AWs for their examination. The perusal of
Part-B of the case file shows that five opportunities have
already been granted to the applicants for producing his
witnesses on self responsibility but needful has not been
done till date.
Accordingly, the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th September, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1532 of 2019 in RFA
11.09.2023
Present: Shri Visshvinder Singh, Advocate, vice Shri
Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel
for respondent No.2.
In compliance of the order dated 25.05.2022, of
the Hon’ble Court, list alongwith CMP(M) No. 1533 of
2019.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 145 of 2022
12.09.2023
Present: Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant No.1.
Shri Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for defendant
No.2.
As per office report, steps for the plaintiff’s
evidence has not been taken. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff seeks some more time to do the needful.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen days,
thereafter, the matter be listed before Additional Registrar
(Judicial) for fixing the date of plaintiff’s evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th September, 2023
(Pritam)
COPC No. 106 of 2018
13.09.2023
Present: Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kusum, Advocate, vice Ms. Seema K.
Guleria, Advocate, for the respondents.
Learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits
that the witnesses are not present today. However, the
remaining PWs will be brought by the next date of hearing
on self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for recording the
statement of remaining PWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 65 of 2011
14.09.2023
Present: Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Shri B. R. Sharma, Advocate, for the
defendant.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that
he will produce the defendants evidence on the next date of
hearing on self responsibility. He seeks adjournment for
today. Allowed.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for recording the
statement of defendant’s witnesses.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Order sheet
Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 a/w CS 108 of 2021
15.09.2023
Present: Shri Ravi Kumar, vice Shri Maan Singh,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate, vice Shri
Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the
defendants.
As per office report, process fee for
summoning the plaintiff’s witnesses has been filed but the
diet money has not been deposited due to which the
summons have not been issued.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff submits
that they have filed the list of witnesses on 04.08.2023
alongwith the Process Fee. But the list of witnesses is not
on record. However, the PF has been placed on the file.
The list of witnesses has been supplied by the learned vice
counsel for the plaintiff, which is taken on record. As per
the list of witnesses the plaintiff will produce the witnesses
at their own responsibility, therefore, there is no need to
summon any witness and to deposit the diet money.
Learned vice counsel seeks time for recording the evidence
of PWs.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of plaintiff’s
witnesses on which date the plaintiff will produce the
witnesses on self responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15 th
September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2013
PW-2. Statement of Ms. Babli Dharta,
Registration Clerk, O/o Sub Registrar
Shimla, (Urban), D.C. Office, Shimla-1.
On Oath
15.09.2023
Stated that I am working as Registration
Clerk in the Office of Sub Registrar, Shimla (Urban),
D.C. Office, Shimla from the year 2018. I have
brought the requisitioned record. As per the record
brought by me the Sale Deed having Registration No.
141, was registered in our office on 28.06.1996,
certified copy of which is Ex. PW2/A. (Objected to on
the ground of mode of proof). As per my record, Ex-
PW2/A is true and correct copy issued by the Sub
Registrar (Urban), Shimla. I have also brought the
original record pertaining to Sale Deed No. 307, dated
15.12.1992, duly registered in the office of Sub
Registrar (Urban), Shimla. As per my record the
certified copy of the said Sale Deed is Ex. PW2/B.
(Objected to on the ground of mode of proof). As per
my record, Ex-PW2/B is true and correct copy issued
by the Sub Registrar (Urban), Shimla.
xxx xxx xxx By Shri Neeraj Gupta,
Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri,
Advocate, for defendant No.1.
It is correct that I am not aware who was
Sub Registrar Shimla (Urban) on 28.06.1996 and
15.12.1992. At the time of registration of Sale Deed
two original copies are being submitted in the
Registration Office, out of which one copy is retained
and pasted in the concerned Book kept in the
Registration Office and the second copy is returned to
the parties after due registration. I have brought the
second office copies of the Sale Deeds, which were
kept in our office at the time of registration. It is
correct that when the above said sale deed were
registered in the office of Sub Registrar Shimla
(Urban), I was not present in that office at that time. I
cannot identified the signatures of the then Sub
Registrar, who had appended his signature on the
above said sale deed. It is correct that I also cannot
identified the signature of the person who has certified
the copies on the above said sale deeds.
xxx xxx xxx By Shri Vaibhav Tanwar,
Advocate for defendant No.2
I adopt the cross examination conducted by
defendant No.1.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
31st August, 2023.
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2013
15.09.2023
Present: Sh. Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal with Ms. Swati,
Verma, Advocates for the plaintiff.
Sh. Vikas Jain with Ms. Pragti, Advocate for
defendants No. 1 ,6 an d ,7.
None for the defendants No. 2, 3 and 8.
Defendants No. 4 and 5 ex-parte
Sh. Mandeep Sandhu Authorized
representative of defendants No. 1, 6 and 7 is present.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that due to
inadvertence Sh. Mandeep Sandhu has not brought the
original documents, which are required to be produced and
exhibited in his evidence. Therefore, he seeks adjournment
for today.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has not
objected prayer made by the learned counsel for the
defendant. Accordingly , the matter is adjourned for today.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that he
will produce the defendant on the next date of hearing on its
own responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (J) for fixing the date of defendants evidence.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15th September, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1169 of 2022 in RSA No. 31 of 2020
16.09.2023
Present: Sh. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant.
Sh. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate, for respondent
No.1
Respondents No. 2 to 4 ex-parte.
As per order dated 21.08.2023, of the
Hon’ble Court, the matter was directed to be listed before
the undersigned on 05.09.2023. However, as per report of
the Dealing Assistant, the matter could not be listed on
05.09.2023 as the case file was got mixed up with another
matter and the Dealing Assistant has regretted for the same.
The case is listed before the undersigned today.
Further, as per the office report steps
have not been taken and the PF, Road and Diet Money and
List of the Witnesses are still awaited. Learned counsel for
the applicant seeks one week’s time to do the needful.
Prayer is considered and allowed.
Let the steps be taken within one week,
thereafter the process be issued for the service of the
applicant’s witnesses for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
16th September, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS No. 11 of 2019
18.09.2023
Present: Sh. Praveen Chandel, Advocate, for the
plaintiffs alongwith Shri Surinder Singh and
Shri Raj Kumar (Plaintiffs).
Sh. G,D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Sumit Sharma, Advocate for defendant No.1
and 2 alongwith Shri Ramesh Chand
(Defendant).
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for
defendant No.3.
Learned counsel for the parties have
submitted that there are chances of amicable settlement
between the parties and no fruitful purpose will be served as
of today by recording the evidence of the plaintiffs.
Learned counsels requested that the matter be listed in the
Court.
In view of the statement of the learned counsel
let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Statement of Sh. Dhreej Goel, S/o Shri A.K.
Goel, aged 47 years, R/o Goel Niwas Power
House Road, Saproon, Solan, District Solan,
H.P.
On Oath
18.09.2023
State that I have filed the proceedings under
Section 72 of the H.P,. of the Co-operative Societies Act
before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society,
Solan, and the petition bears my signature, which have
been identified by me today. I have also filed evidence by
way of affidavit in that petition and the affidavit also
bears my signatures. I was cross examined to my
evidence on 19.08.2009 and on that cross examination I
have appended my signatures. I have also seen
Vakalatnama in the file of the proceedings under Section
72 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the
Vakalatnama also bears my signature.
In the Appeal No. 25 of 2013, filed before
Registrar Co-operative Societies by Solan District Truck
Operators transport society, I have filed the reply
alongwith its affidavit. The reply as well as affidavit
bears my signatures. The Vakalatnama in Appeal No. 25
of 2013 also bears my signature.
In the Revision No. 25 of 2014, filed under
Section 94 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act filed by
Solan District Truck operators transport societies (SDTO),
I had executed Vakalatnama by appending my signature.
I have seen my signature in that Vakalatnama today.
In the Writ Petition No. 4069 of 2015 titled as
SDTO versus Dheeraj Goel, I executed the Vakalatnama
by appending my signature. Thereafter on account of
change of my counsel I executed one another
Vakalatnama on 16.08.2021, which also bears my
signature. In the said writ petition, the reply filed on my
behalf which is supported by affidavit does not bear my
signature. In the said writ petition my newly engaged
counsel had filed CMP No. 16920 of 2022, application
filed by my counsel, which is supported by affidavit and
the affidavit bears my signatures.
In LPA No. 29 of 2023, filed by SDTO I
authorize learned counsel to represent me by executing
Vakalatnama, which also bears my signatures.
I have seen all the above mentioned signatures,
which have been signed by me.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
18.09.2023
Statement of Sh. Harpreet Singh, S/o Shri
Ajmer Singh, aged 53 years, R/o Brar Road
Solan, District Solan, H.P.
On Oath
18.09.2023
State that I have filed the proceedings under
Section 72 of the H.P,. of the Co-operative Societies Act
before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society,
Solan, and the petition bears my signature, which have
been identified by me today. I have also executed the
Vakalatnama on 06.01.2009, which bears my signature. I
cannot say that the affidavit in evidence dated 08.07.2009,
filed on my behalf bears my signatures or not. In the
cross examination appended on the said file, I identify my
signatures. In the rejoinder filed in that proceedings, I
identify my signature.
I had filed application for execution of the
award dated 13.10.2009, before learned Assistant
Registrar H.P. Co-operative Societies. The application
bears my signatures (in Punjabi). The Vakalatnama in
that proceedings also bears my signature.
The SDTO had filed an Appeal No. 26 of
2013, against the order dated 17.08.2013, passed by
learned ARCS Solan, in which reply had been filed on my
behalf. I cannot say that the reply bears my signature or
not I have some doubt about the signature. I am also
doubtful regarding my signatures on the affidavit in
support of the reply. I am also doubtful about my
signature on the application filed under Section 151 CPC
in that appeal. I am also doubtful about my signature on
the Vakalatnama in that appeal. In the signatures which
are appended in Punjabi I am doubtful about the shape of
the word `Ra’ in my signature spelled as `Harpreet’.
In the Revision Petition No. 24 of 2014 under
Section 94 of H.P. Co-operative Societies Act I have seen
my signature on the Vakalatnama and I am also doubtful
about my signature as stated above.
In CWP No. 4098 of 2015, I have seen my
signature on the affidavit appended with the reply and I
am also doubtful about my signature as stated above. In
this writ petition I had executed Vakalatnama dated
14.12.2015, I have seen my signature in it and I identify
my signature. On account of change of counsel in that
proceeding I executed another Vakalatnama on
15.08.2021, which bears my signature. I have seen my
signature on the Vakalatnama dated 15.08.2021 and it is
my short signature.
In LPA No. 32 of 2023, I had filed reply to
CMP No. 7476 of 2023, for the application filed Section
151 CPC duly supported by affidavit and the affidavit
bears my short signature. The Vakalatnama dated
02.05.2023, in the said LPA also bears my signature.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
18.09.2023
CMP No. 2831 of 2021 in RSA No. 511 of 2016
Statement of Sh. Jitender Singh, S/o Late
Shri Khem Singh, aged 58 years, R/o
Jagjeet Niwas Brar Road Solan, District
Solan, H.P.
On Oath
20.09.2023
State that in the application for execution of
the award dated 14.09.2009, passed by Assistant Registrar
Co-operative Society Solan, Shri Dheeraj Goel, had
authorized me through GPA to sign the application.
Accordingly, I appended my signature on the said
application dated 22.03.2013, I have seen my signature
on the said application. The GPA and Vakalatnama bears
my signatures.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
20.09.2023
LPA NOs. 29 & 32 of 2023
18.09.2023
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
appellants.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate and Mr. Pranjal
Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.3
In compliance to the order dated
18.09.2023, the statement of Shri Dheeraj Goel, Shri
Harpreet Singh and Shri Jitender are recorded.
Let the statements of the above said
persons be placed on record and as directed list the matter
before the Hon’ble Court on 25.09.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th September, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) 1363 of 2022 in RSA
19.09.2023
Present: Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant.
Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate for respondent
No. 1.
Respondents No. 3 and 4 ex-parte.
As per the office report, steps i.e. list of
applicants witnesses, road and diet money etc. have not
been filed. Two opportunities have already been granted.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks
some more time to do the needful. Let the steps be taken
within seven days thereafter the process be issued for
service of applicant evidence for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th September, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No.2831 of 2021 in RSA No.511 of 2016
20.09.2023
Present: – Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with
Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate for the
applicants.
Shri Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, for the non-
applicant-respondent.
Shri Kanshi Ram, sole witness is present
today, but learned counsel for the non-applicant prays for
adjournment on the ground that due to demise in the relation of
the original senior counsel, he is not available in the Court
today to cross examine the witness. Learned opposing counsel
did not oppose the request of the learned counsel for the non-
applicant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for today.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he
will produce the witness Shri Kanshi Ram on the next date of
hearing on self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for remaining AW.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 79 of 2016
22.09.2023
Present: – None for the plaintiff.
Shri Pranjal Munjal, learned vice counsel for
the defendant.
As per office report diet money for
summoning the plaintiff’s witnesses has not been deposited.
Let the needful be done within three weeks.
Thereafter, the process be issued for service of the plaintiff’s
witnesses for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd September, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016
PW-2 Statement of Ms. Jyoti Kaushik W/o Shri
Pankaj Kaushik, aged 48 years, R/o Village
Chakkarpur, Gurgaon, Haryana.
On Oath
03.10.2023
State that I am Director of Andaz Resort at
Kaithalighat, Solan. Vide Board resolution dated
15.02.2016, Ex.PW2/A, (original seen and returned).
The plaintiff Resort had entered into a lease for the
period of five years vide lease agreement Ex.PW2/B-1
with the defendant No.1 on 24.01.2014. As per the
agreement the lease was for the period of five years and
the lease amount was Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty one lacs
only) per annum. At the time of entering into the lease
agreement an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) as
token money was handed over to defendant No.1 through
cheque. The second cheque dated 01.02.2014 amounting
to Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rs. Nine lacs fifty thousand) was also
handed over to the defendant No.1 (Chaman Lal) as per
the lease agreement. Third cheque dated 30.06.2014,
amounting to Rs.10,50,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs fifty thousand)
was again handed over to defendant No.1 in compliance
to the lease agreement. Till July 2015, the plaintiff-Resort
paid total amount of Rs.40,60,000/- (Rs. Forty lacs sixty
thousand) which includes Rs.3,90,000/- as TDS amount
for the period of two years. Last TDS amount of
Rs.1,80,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1
account on 31.03.2016. We have entered into the lease
agreement with the defendant No.1 for the purpose of
running the Hotel in the premises. Thereafter, we make
certain minor renovations in the premises and purchases
for running the Hotel business. We make changes in the
washroom fittings, beddings, installed CCTV cameras,
computers and purchased utensils etc. We spent about
Rs.10,25,000/- lacs (Rs. Ten lacs and twenty five
thousand) for the aforesaid purchases and changes. Bills
pertaining to the above said purchases were in the Hotel
record maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff run the
above said Hotel till July, 2015. We conducted the
business of about one crorer ten lacs in the first lease year
and about fifty lacs uptil July, 2015. The plaintiff
remained in the possession of the Hotel till October, 2015.
On 17.10.2015, I received a phone call from our General
Manager of the Hotel Late Shri Vijay Sarswat on which I
alongwith my husband, brother (Shri Deepak Sharma) and
my two children, visited the leased property at Manali on
18.10.2015, but the defendant No.1 did not allow us to
enter the premises inspite of the subsistence of the lease
agreement. Thereafter, we approached the Police Station
at Manali, District Kullu, H.P., and the police called
defendant No.1 at Police Station, Manali. The police
advised us to settle the matter between ourselves as it is of
civil nature. Defendant No.1 assured in the presence of
the police to resolve the matter amicably but the
defendant No.1 was not inclined to settle the matter, so
they did not allow us to enter the premises or to come to
any settlement. As per terms of the lease agreement the
plaintiff was entitled to construct the attic on the top floor
of the Hotel premises and also to install the Generator.
The plaintiff could not construct the attic as the defendant
did not allow us to do so. Moreover, the defendant could
not show any permissions from the authorities qua
construction of attic and installation of the Generator.
Defendant No.1 from June 2015 started to insist the
plaintiff for increasing the lease amount. The defendant
also pressurize the plaintiff to give some amount for
raising the attic on the top floor of the Hotel. We did not
acceded to the demands of defendant No.1. After
receiving the advance of the lease amount in July 2015,
the defendant No.1 started to obstruct the smooth
functioning of the Hotel business by taking the raw
material etc., inside the Hotel for raising the fifth floor,
due to which the customers of the Hotel were feeling
inconvenient as the bookings were being cancelled and
the plaintiff started suffer losses. Plaintiff repeatedly
requesting defendant No.1 to stop causing nuisance but he
did not pay any heed to the requests of the plaintiff.
Thereafter, on 16.09.2015 defendant No.1 sent a notice to
the plaintiff to which the reply has been sent which is
mark `A’. In the reply the plaintiff again requested the
defendant to show the permission from the concerned
authorities for allowing the plaintiff to raise the attic etc.
All the business correspondence regarding booking and
the accounts of the said business are being maintained by
me on the computer. The copies of the mails regarding the
bookings are being annexed as Ex.PW2/C (colly. 97
leaves). (Objected to on the mode of proof). The copy of
ledger account is Ex.PW2/D (colly. 19 leaves) (Objected
to on the mode of proof). The certificate under Section 65
of the Indian Evidence Act., qua maintaining the above
said mails and ledger account is Ex.PW2/E. The plaintiff
use to file the income tax return pertaining to the business
income of the plaintiff resort through our Charted
Accountant Shri Surinder Babbar. Till when the plaintiff
remain in possession of the leased premises all the taxes
and bills were being paid by the plaintiff. Due to the
discontinuation of the lease agreement by the defendant
No.1, the plaintiff-Resort suffered an amount of about
Rs.84,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty four lacs) and also has to loose
its good will.
xxx xxx xxx by Shri B.S. Attri, Advocate,
for the defendants.
Before filing the suit I have read the plaint. It
is correct that at the time of filing this suit the
resolution of the Board of Director was not filed
with the suit. Self stated that it was filed while
filing the replication. It is incorrect that I was not
duly authorized/competent to file the present civil
suit. At the time of execution of the lease agreement
I was personally present in the leased premises. I do
not remember the total number of the conditions in
the lease agreement. It is correct that in the lease
agreement qua renovation of the leased premises.
Self stated that the renovation/repairs were
necessary for running of the Hotel which were being
carried out by the plaintiff with the consent of
defendant No.1. It is incorrect that as per term 16 of
the lease agreement the lesser had to carryout the
repair etc. It is correct that the lease amount was to
be paid on or before 30th June, of every lease year. It
is correct that for the year 2015-2016, the lease
money was not paid up till 30.06.2023. Self stated
that the plaintiff have already paid the posted dated
cheque to the defendant. I have not annexed any
record/cheque qua paying of the post dated cheque
with the present suit. It is incorrect that on
01.07.2015, the entire lease money has not been paid
to the defendant. It is incorrect that as per the
agreement if the lease money was not paid with the
stipulated period i.e. 30th June, the lease agreement
shall be treated as cancelled. I have disclosed to my
counsel while drafting the plaint that we have
received a telephonic call from our General manager
on 17.10.2015 and we visited Manali on 18.10.2023.
We tried to make a written complaint to the police
but the police did not accept our written complaint,
however, they advised us to settle the matter
amicably being civil in nature. It is incorrect that on
18.10.2015, neither we visited Manali nor we went
to police station. I never remained as Principal in a
private school at Gurgaon, Haryana. I did not file
any civil suit at Manali and filed the present suit at
Shimla. I have disclosed to my counsel about the
inconvenience caused to the Hotel clients due the
construction being raised by defendant No.1. We did
not made any complaint to any authority regarding
inconvenience caused to the plaintiff due the
conduct of the defendant. We did not click any
photographs regarding the construction and taking
the raw material by him through the Hotel premises.
It is incorrect that I am deposing false regarding the
inconvenience caused to the clients of the Hotel.
We started to make the request to defendant from
the very first of the lease to provide all the
clearances from the authorities for constructing the
attic on the top floor. I am not aware that the leased
premises is out of the jurisdiction of Town and
Country Planning Department. Self stated that the
same fact was not disclosed by the defendant. It is
incorrect that the plaintiff was never inclined to raise
the attic and install the Generator at any point of
time. We did not give any notice to the defendant.
Self stated that we orally requested the defendant to
raise the construction. It is incorrect that during the
possession of the lease property the defendant had
paid electricity, telephone and luxury taxes. We
have mentioned in our income tax return regarding
the turnover of the business of our Hotel for the first
years 2015-2016. In the year 2015 we have taken
this Hotel for the first time on lease, however,
Andaz Resorts is a Single Unit. It is incorrect that
the income tax returns are for the consolidated
businesses of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid
the luxury tax up-till July 2015. It is incorrect that
the plaintiff had not the turnover of Rs.1,10,00,000/-
(Rs. One crorer ten lacs) in the first year and
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty lacs) in the first half of the
second year. It is incorrect that we were not serious
in running the Hotel business after the possession of
the leased premises. It is incorrect that due to which
we only visited once or twice in the entire period.
Self stated that we have engaged General Manager
for running of the Hotel and we also use to visit
frequently. It is incorrect that we have engaged Shri
Vijay Sarswat as our General Manager. I have
disclosed to my counsel while drafting the plaint
about the expenses being done on the Hotel as well
as maintaining the record on the computer. Self
stated that the entire record as well as computer
were not being allowed to be taken by the plaintiff.
We went to the police station to disclose all these
facts but we were sent back to come to amicably
settle the matter. It is incorrect that since the
plaintiff was not serious and was incurring huge
expenses, therefore, we abandoned the Hotel
September, 2015. It is incorrect while in possession
of the leased premises we have broken one wall of
the Hotel without the permission of the defendant.
It is incorrect that the entire record annexed with the
suit is fabricated. It is incorrect that the plaintiff
Resort has violated the terms and condition of the
lease agreement. It is incorrect that the defendant
did not raise fifth floor on the leased premises. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false in order to harass
the defendant.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
03.10.2023
Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016
03.10.2023
Present: – Shri P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with
Shri Rahul Kukar, Advocate for the plaintiffs.
Shri B.S. Attri, Advocate for the defendants.
Statement of Ms. Jyoti Kaushisk, is recorded
as PW2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vide his separate
statement has given up Shri Baldev Singh Thakur and Shri
Pankaj Kaushik. Learned senior counsel has further submitted
that Shri Vijay Sarswat one of the witness mentioned at Serial
No.3, has expired.
Let remaining PWs be summoned for the date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). Steps, if any, be
taken within fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016
Statement of Shri Rahul, learned counsel
for the plaintiffs.
Without Oath
03.10.2023
State that I give up Shri Pankaj Kaushik and
Shri Baldev Singh Thakur, being repetitive in nature.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd October, 2023
(Pritam)
Execution Petition No. 10 of 2019
RW-1 Statement of Shri Yashudeep Singh, DFO
Kotgarh, District Shimla aged 35 years.
On Oath
04.10.2023
State that I am posted as DFO Kotgarh from
15th May, 2023. I have brought the relevant record today.
As per the available record the then DFO had put in all the
efforts to execute of the decree of the Hon’ble Court
which was in Civil Suit No. 85 of 1999. As per the order
of Court the assessment of the value of the improvement
made on the suit land was to be carried out by the official
or approved evaluator at the time of eviction. In 2013 the
then DFO requested to Director Horticulture to make
assessment as per above said judgment. After that
Horticulture Development Officer Narkanda, submitted
the assessment value Mark `A’ and the total value
assessed value was Rs, 5,46,018/- (Rs. Five lacs forty six
thousand and eighteen). As per the record Horticulture
Development Officer assessed the value on the basis of
Harbans Singh formula. After this various
correspondences took place between the Forest
Department and the Revenue Department and expenditure
sanction of Rs. 5,46,018/- was received from Additional
Chief Secretary (Forest) on dated 24.08.2018. As per
record, Legal heirs of Shri Vishwa Dev (plaintiff/DH)
were requested to attend the office of DFO Kotgarh on
dated 12.12.2018, 18.01.2019 and 16.03.2019. The
husbands of the daughters/ legal heirs of the petitioner
were present on 18.01.2019 through GPA. They were
shown the evaluation report, Mark `A’, submitted by
Horticulture Development Officer and they were further
requested to provide Bank details of the legal heirs of
DH so that the said assessed value could be deposited in
their Bank Accounts. But no such details were not
furnished on 18.01.2019. Later two cheques bearing No.
349355 and bearing No. 349356, dated 27.03.2019
amounting Rs.2,73,009/- each were sent to the legal heirs
vide letter dated 27.03.2019. Both the cheques were
returned by the daughters/LRs of the DH through
Registered Post to DFO office Kotgarh vide Registered
letter dated 15.05.2019 and the same were received in the
office of DFO Kotgarh on 22.05.2019. Therefore, there is
no lapse on the part of the respondent to execute the
decree dated 01.12.2004, passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 85 of 2019.
xxx xxx xxx by Shri Hamender Singh
Chandel, Advocate, for DH.
As per the record the suit land was allotted as
Nautor land to Shri Vishwa Dev (DH). I do not
know in the complaint against the Vishwa Dev
pertaining to the said allotment the State of
Himachal Pradesh has supported the claim of the
DH in the Hon’ble High Court as well as in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is correct that the said
allotment was made to the DH by the Revenue
Department. It is correct that in Civil Suit No. 85 of
1999 the Revenue Department was party. I do not
know when the Nautor land was allotted to DH. I
do not know the classification of the land, ownership
and possession of the said land at the time of
allotment. Self stated that as per the record of Forest
Department the said land is un-demarcated protected
forest (UPF). I have not seen the revenue record
pertaining to 1973 when the said allotment was
made. As per the record before making the
evaluation of the said land the site was visited by the
Forest and Revenue officials. As per the record the
site was visited on 18.06.2014 by Horticulture
Development Officer Shri Begh Ram and other
Forest and Revenue officials. The designation of the
officials of the Revenue Department is not on
record. There is no record that intimation qua the
visit of the official on 18.06.2014 was given to the
legal heirs of the plaintiff/DH. Self stated that there
was no such condition in the order of the Hon’ble
High Court. When the husbands of the daughters of
the DH visited the office of the DFO on 18.01.2019,
the note sheet pertaining to the proceeding was
prepared and the same were got signed by the parties
who were present on that day. The said noting is Ex.
DX. It is correct that I am deposing today on the
basis of record and I have not personally dealt with
the case. It is incorrect that the respondents has
failed to comply the order of the Hon’ble Court in
letter and spirit and the evaluation report had been
made on the lower side in connivance with the
Horticulture Department.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
04.10.2023
Execution Petition No. 10 of 2019
RW-2 Statement of Shri Rajender Singh, Naib
Tehsildar Kotgarh, District Shimla aged 46
years.
On Oath
04.10.2023
State that I am working as Naib
Tehsildar Kotgarh from last two months. As per the
record the revenue officials alongwith officials of
the Horticulture Department and Forest Department
visited the site in the year 2014. The petitioner was
also informed at that relevant time. As per record
before preparing the evaluation report the
Horticulture Department assessed all the things i.e.
trees on the site were found. No built up structure
was found on the spot. Revenue entry is made in the
revenue documents pertaining to structure and
nature of the land at the time settlement if structure
is found on the spot at that relevant time.
xxx xxx xxx by Shri Hamender Singh
Chandel, Advocate, for DH.
The nautor land was allotted to DH in the year
1982. I do not know the state was supporting the
claim of the DH in the Court proceedings. It is
incorrect that the nautor land was allotted to the DH
in the year 1974. As per record the nautor land was
classified as Banjar Kadeem-Charagah- Billa
Darkhtaan in the year 1974. As per record there
were Bartandari rights of the villagers in the said
land. Copy of the mutation (Intkaal) dated
16.02.1982 is Ex. DY. The intimation qua
association of DH of the spot visit was given to the
DH. The record to that effect is not available today
with me but I can produce the same later on. As per
the record Ex. DY in column of the ownership State
of Himachal Pradesh has been mentioned and there
is no entry of the Forest Department in the column
of ownership as well as possession. It is correct that
the revenue department has to identify the boundary
of the suit land when the visit was made by the
official of the Horticulture and Forest Department.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
04.10.2023
Execution Petition No. 10 of 2019
Statement of Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy
Advocate General, High Court of
Himachal Pradesh.
Without Oath
04.10.2023
I gave up Ms. Manisha, Halqua Patwari,
Patwar Circle Madhawani, Sub Tehsil Kotgarh,
District Shimla, being repetitive in nature.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
04.10.2023
Ex. Petition No. 10 of 2019
04.10.2023
Present: – Shri Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for the
DH.
Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondent-State/JD.
Statement of Shri Yashudeep Singh, DFO
Kotgarh and Shri Rajender Singh Naib Tehsildar Kotgarh are
recorded as RW/1 and RW/2, respectively. Ms. Ranjna Patial,
Learned Deputy Advocate General vide her separate statement
has given up RW mentioned at Serial No.4. Learned Deputy
Advocate General further submits that due to chest cogession
PW at Serial No.3 Shri Begh Ram, HDO, could not put his
appearance for adducing his evidence.
Let the remaining RW i.e. Shri Begh Ram be
summoned for the next date of hearing to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial). Steps, if any, be taken within
fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th October, 2023
(Pritam)
COPC No. 190 of 2019
CW2 Statement of Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Late
Shri Dhanvir Singh R/o Mohal Sount,
Mauza Har Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra,
H.P. aged about 64 years.
On Oath
05.10.2023
Stated that I am house wife and illiterate.
However, I can only sign the documents which has
been taught by my daughter. Savita is daughter-in-
law of my sister-in-law (Jethani). After the death of
my son and marriage of my daughter, respondent
No.1, came to me on the pretext for obtaining GPA
for the partition of joint land and ultimately played
fraud as a result whereof, I filed Civil Suit before the
learned trial Court at Dehra, which was decreed.
The respondents filed the appeal against the order of
the trial Court at Dharamshala, which was also
dismissed by the appellate Court. Thereafter, in the
year 2014, Smt. Savita and Rajinder filed appeal
before this Hon’ble Court, which is pending
adjudication. The Hon’ble High Court directed the
parties vide order dated 10.10.2014 to maintain
status quo, qua the nature and possession of the suit
land. Inspite of the status quo order the respondents
by way of family settlement transferred the part of
suit land in favour of their daughter Smt. Shweta,
vide family settlement Ex.CW1/B. Subsequently,
Shri Rajinder transferred the part of suit land to one
Shri Amar Nath vide Sale Deed Ex.CW1/C. The
respondents were well aware about the status quo
order granted by the Hon’ble Court in their
application filed by the respondents and inspite of
that they have breached the orders of the Hon’ble
Court intentionally and willfully.
xxx xxx xxx xxx Shri Mukul Sood,
Advocate, for the respondents.
I am not aware about the Khasra
numbers of the suit property. I was informed about
the status quo order through summons as well as
from my Advocate. I am not specifically aware that
there was any condition regarding prohibition of
selling transferring or encumbering of the said
property. It is correct that no construction has been
raised by any of the parties or the subsequent
purchasers. Self stated that the respondents had sold
and transferred the part of suit property inspite of the
stay order of the Hon’ble Court. The signatures in
the contempt petition alongwith the affidavit are not
mine. Again stated that the signatures are mine. The
affidavit accompanying the reply to the application
under order 41 Rule 5 and order 39 Rule 1 and 2 in
CMP No. 15349 of 2014 are mine. Self stated that
my Counsel had taken my signatures on blank paper.
I am not aware about the contents of the reply to the
above said application filed by me. I am not aware
about the contents of the reply filed by the
respondents/appellant. It is incorrect that there was
no stay order qua transferring or alienating the suit
property. It is incorrect that I have instituted the
present contempt petition in order to harass the
respondents and no disobedience has been done by
the respondents.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
05.10.2023
COPC No. 190 of 2019
Statement of Ms. Salochana Rana,
Advocate, High Court of Himachal
Pradesh.
Without Oath
05.10.2023
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf
of the petitioner since the list of witnesses has been
exhausted.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
R.O & AC
05.10.2023
COPC 190 of 2019
05.10.2023
Present: – Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev
Sood, Advocate, for the respondents.
Statement of Smt. Bimla Devi is recorded as
CW2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vide her separate
statement has closed the petitioner’s evidence. Learned
counsel for the respondents seeks time for respondents
evidence.
Let the steps, if any, be taken within fifteen days for
RWs. Thereafter the process be issued for the service of RWs
for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 80 of 2010
06.10.2023
Present: – Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
Ms. Lalita Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri Y.P. Sood, Advocate for defendants No.
1 and 2.
None for defendant No.3.
Summons issued to Shri B.C. Sharma, is duly
served and he is present today in the Court. However, he
submits that he has not prepared the damage report due to
which he is unable to adduce his evidence today. He seeks
some more time for producing the damage report. Therefore,
he is discharged for today.
Moreover, the perusal of order dated 01.03.2023
passed by Registrar (Vigilance) shows that some of the
witnesses have been discharged on that day but they have not
been re-summoned. The Dealing Assistant is directed to issue
the summons to those witnesses who have been discharged vide
order dated 01.03.2023 alongwith Shri B.C. Sharma, for the
date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). Steps, if
any, be taken within seven days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 43 of 2017
07.10.2023
Present: – Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for
the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Verma, ld vice counsel for Shri
Tarun Jeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant has moved
an application for submission of the solvent security bond in
compliance to order dated 08.08.2023 of the Hon’ble Court in
Arbitration case No. 43 of 2017. The perusal of the same shows
that the documents i.e., certificate of the Canera Bank, report of
the Patwari and Jamabandi have been placed alongwith the
application, but no security bond has been furnished in
compliance to the orders of Hon’ble Court.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant-respondent
seeks two weeks time to do the needful. Let the case be listed
after furnishing of the security bond.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th October, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
09.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev
Sood, Advocate, for the applicants-
respondent.
Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate vice
Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate, for the non-
applicants-appellant.
As per office report, the summons issued for
the service of non-applicant witnesses mentioned at Sr. No. 2
and 3, in the list of witnesses are un-served with the report that
the addressees are not present at home and the house was found
to be closed.
Learned vice counsel for the non-applicants-
appellants seeks two weeks time for taking the steps.
Accordingly, let the steps be taken within two
weeks thereafter the fresh summon be issued for the service of
witnesses mentioned at Sr. No. 2, in the list of witnesses of the
non-applicant-appellant. Learned vice counsel for the non-
applicant further submits he will produce Shri Subhash Chand
on his self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before Additional Registrar
(Judicial) for fixing the date of RWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Cmp(m) No. 1328 of 2022
10.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv
Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant.
Ms. Vandna Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr.
Surinder Saklani, Advocate for the defendant.
Let the case be listed for applicants evidence
on 07.12.2023. Steps, if any, be taken within two weeks.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th October, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
10.10.2023
AW-4: Statement of Sh. Tushar Sharma S/o Shri
Ashok Kumar, aged about 20 years, Village
Tadoli, P.O. Saru, Pargana Udaipur, Tehsil and
District Chamba, H.P.
On Oath
10.10.2023
Stated that I am permanent resident of above
stated address. On 04.11.2019, the appellants were fixing
the railing on our land. The appellants have themselves
obtained the order of stay in RSA No. 223 of 2014 and they
were defying the orders of the Hon’ble Court dated
29.11.2016 by fixing the railing on the suit property. My
father Shri Ashok Kumar requested them not to raise any
type of construction/railing on the suit property but they did
not pay any heed to the request of my father and started
quarreling with my father. Thereafter on the same day my
father lodged a complaint Police Post Darada. The police
did not take any action on the complaint of my father. I
have passed my ITI this year only. On 04.11.2019 I was
also present on the spot and I also clicked the photographs
from my mobile, which are Mark A2 to A6. The
photographs were got developed by me at Devi-Dehra from
the photographer in the name and style of M/s Ajay
Brothers. I have also obtained the receipt Mark-A9, from
Ajay Brothers, qua developing of the said photographs.
The appellants have intentionally and willfully disobeyed
the order of the Hon’ble Court.
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
xxx xxx xxx By Shri Ajay Sood, Senior
Advocate with Shri Rohit, Advocate for
respondent/non-applicant.
It is correct that the railing is fixed on the lentil
of the house. The house shown in photographs Mark A-2 to
A-6, belongs to the house of Kaushlya Devi. Self stated
that she had raised part of her house on our land. I do not
know whether any FIR had been registered against my
father qua the said quarrel. I am not aware that a criminal
case is pending adjudication at District Court Chamba
against my father. The house of the Kaushlya Devi has
been construction on Khasra No. 1954/1131. I do not know
in which year the said house was constructed. I do not
know that Kaushlya Devi had raised her house before my
birth. Khasra Nos. 1133 and 1131 belongs to my father. I
have not seen any revenue paper pertaining to these Khasra
Numbers. Ajay and Brother Proprietor is still having his
shop at Devi-Dehra. I am not aware that Shri Ajay came to
Shimla Court for adducing his evidence. It is incorrect that
I do not know anything about the case. It is incorrect that
the appellants have not disobeyed the orders of the Hon’ble
Court.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th October, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
10.10.2023
AW-4: Statement of Sh. Karan Sharma, Advocate,
for the applicants, High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, Shimla.
Without Oath
10.10.2023
Stated that I closed the evidence on behalf of
the applicants-respondents since the list of witness has
been exhausted.
R.O & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
10th October, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 16020 of 2019 in RSA No. 223 of 2014
10.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for the non-applicant.
Statement of Shri Tushar Sharma as AW-4, is
recorded. Learned counsel for the applicant vide his
separate statement has closed the evidence on behalf of the
applicants.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant seeks time
for taking the steps for RWs. Let the steps be taken within
fifteen days, thereafter, the process be issued for service of
RWs for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 48 of 2016
11.10.2023
Present: – Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for
defendant No.1.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. V.D.
Khidtta, Advocate, for defendant No.2.
As per the office report, summons issued to one
witness mentioned at Sr. No. 1 in the list of witnesses is
still awaited.
At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have
submitted that there are chances of amicable settlement
between the parties, if the lis is referred for mediation.
In view of the statement of learned counsel for the
parties, let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court
for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 4085 of 2016
11.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for the
defendants.
As per the office report, PWs mentioned at Sr. No. 3,
4 and 5, in the list of witnesses are duly served. Witnesses
mentioned at PW3, Shri Sunil Suman and PW5 Shri Raju,
Deputy Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Branch, Lift
Road, The Mall Shimla, as mentioned in the list of witnesses
are present. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted
that due to the engagement of learned Senior Counsels for
the parties in the Hon’ble Court, they are unable to come for
the examination of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff further prayed the witnesses who are present in the
Court may be discharged.
Accordingly, the witnesses present today in the Court
are discharged. Let the notice under Order 16 Rule 12 be
issued to PW4 mentioned in the list of witnesses, since
despite service he did not put appearance for adducing his
evidence.
Let the fresh steps i.e. PF diet money be deposited
within fifteen days. Fresh summons be issued for the service
of PWs mentioned at Sr. No. 3, 4 and 5 in the plaintiff’s list
of witnesses for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 6 of 2015
12.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Dikken Kumar Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
None for the LRs of defendant No. 1 and
defendant No. 3 to 7.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Senior Advocate, with Shri
Rohit, Advocate, for defendant No.2.
Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate, with Ms.
Pooja Verma, Advocate, for defendant No.8
to 10.
Learned counsels for the parties have submitted that
Shri Vijay Pandit, learned counsel who were representing LRs
of defendant No.1 and defendants No. 3 to 7 has expired and
no fresh Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of LRs of
defendant No.1 and defendants No. 3 to 7.
The perusal of record shows that no notice have been
sent to the LRs of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 to 7
after the death of Shri Vijay Pandit and they are un-represented
as of date.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
no witness is present in the Court today. He further submits
that there are chances of amicable settlement between the
parties, therefore, the matter be listed before the Hon’ble
Court. The opposing counsels have further endorsed that the
negotiation are going on between the parties.
Since, as stated above, there are chances of amicable
settlement, therefore, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders, accordingly.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th October, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 891 of 2022
12.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate vice Mr. G.R.
Palsra, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. Kushi Ram Verma, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant seeks one
opportunity for bringing the witnesses on behalf of the
applicant. The opposing counsel has not objected the request
of learned vice counsel for the applicant. Let the applicant’s
witness be produced on self responsibility for the date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Counter Claim No. 35 of 2014
13.10.2023
Present: – None for the plaintiff Non-Counter Claimant.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Karan
Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the Counter
Claimant-defendant.
Learned vice counsel for the Counter Claimant has
submitted that due to personal reason the plaintiff has gone
abroad due to which he could not come to the Court for
adducing his evidence. Learned vice counsel further submits
that the Counter Claimant/defendant will be produced on the
next date of hearing on self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before Additional Registrar
(Judicial) for fixing the date of evidence of the Counter
Claimant, who will be produced on self responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
16.10.2023
DW-3: Statement of Sh. P. Arun Kumar, aged
about 71 years R/o 1/8, Seema Society N
Dutta Road, IV Bunglows, Andheri West,
Mumbai-400053.
On Oath
16.10.2023
Stated that I was Managing Director of the
Defendant-Company at the relevant time. The
defendant started the Company in the year 2000 for
providing services to the telecom companies. Around
2005, the defendant want to extend their business so the
company purchased a land at upper Nangal Village at
Nalagarh, District Solan to set up tower manufacturing
there. The copy of jamabandi is annexed with Rent
Deed Ex. PW1/D. The plaintiff was introduced to me
by one of our common friend at Chandigarh as the
plaintiff-firm were doing the business of selling the
scientific instruments in the market. The plaintiffs-
firm also want to expend their business at Baddi-
Nalagarh (Industrial Area). Accordingly, the plaintiff-
firm took on rent a portion of our shed constructed on
our land at Nalagarh, which was about 500 Sq. Mtrs.
To that effect Rent Deed PW1/D was executed between
the plaintiff-firm and the defendant company.
However, the plaintiff-firm occupied more area i.e.
about 800 Sq. Mtrs., in contravention to the terms of the
agreement. The demarcation to that effect was got
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
conducted by the defendant-company from one Shri
Shivam Karol, (Architect). As per the agreement
Ex.PW1/D, the period of the Rent Deed was for five
years commencing from 20.11.2007 to 19.11.2012 and
the agreed rent was Rs.41,000/- per month. The
defendant-company was planning to manufacture
telecom towers for telecom company in that shed at
Nalagarh. Two activities were involved in that process
which were fabrication of material and galvanization of
the said material. However, due to limited finance
resources of the defendant-company, the defendant-
company restricted its activity qua fabrication of the
material and wanted to outsource the process of
galvanization of the material to some other agency.
The plaintiff-firm was interested in the galvanization of
the material so the defendant after due diligence and
discussion agreed to the proposal of the plaintiff-firm.
The defendant company also discussed the modalities
of the activities and processes with the plaintiff-firm. It
was agreed between the parties that galvanization if
given to the plaintiff-firm would be on job contract
basis. Meaning thereby that in case the defendant-
company would get the order for fabrication, it would
be given for galvanization to the plaintiff-firm and the
plaintiff firm would have the right to undertake outside
job of the other companies, if the plaintiff-firm still
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
having spare capacity available with them to do that.
The said understanding was for a particular activity
i.e., galvanization and even it was agreed between the
parties i.e. landlord and the tenant that how the
movement of the material would take place in the
premises. Subsequently, due to 2G scams in the
telecom sector as well as bleak prospects in the telecom
sector, no orders were placed/received by the
defendant-company due to which no work was being
done by the defendant-company and no assignment was
given for galvanization to the plaintiff-firm by the
defendant-company. The plaintiff-firm also could not
commission the galvanizing plant and they also could
not take orders from other customers as well. Since the
period of the agreement was only for five years, in
November 2012, with an intention of not paying the
rent and gain time the plaintiff-firm filed a frivolous
suit against the defendant-company and obtained the
ex-parte stay order from the Hon’ble Court. The
plaintiff-firm is still occupying the said premises un-
authorizedly from the execution of the rent agreement
and have not paid the rent till date, which the defendant
company is legally entitled to. Alongwith the written
statement, the defendant-company had also filed the
Counter Claim for an amount @ Rs.1,00,000/- per
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
month since the tenancy was terminated by efflux of
time in November, 2012. The defendant-company is,
thus also entitled for use and occupation charges from
November 2012 onwards till date from the plaintiff-
firm.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Nitin Thakur,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
It is correct that the defendant-company
entered into memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiff-firm on 05.12.2007. It is correct that as per the
memorandum of understanding the galvanization work
was to be assigned to the plaintiff-firm. Self stated that
the said work was to be assigned to the plaintiff-firm if
the defendant-company would get the order for tower
supply. It is correct that before galvanization process is
assigned to the plaintiff-firm, there are certain processes
which were required to be done on behalf of the
defendant-company. It is incorrect that the defendant-
company had failed to do the needful on their part and
subsequently, started to raise lame excuses for not
assigning the galvanization work to the plaintiff-firm.
Self stated that the towers are required to be
manufactured on the need basis of the customers and
since no order were placed, therefore, no work was
being done on the part of the defendant-company. It is
incorrect that the plaintiff-company had to earn
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
approximately Rs.5.5 crores profit from the work of
galvanization. I do not know for the purpose of setting
up galvanization plant, the plaintiff-firm had spent
about two corers. It is incorrect that since the plaintiff-
firm had already spent about two crorers due to which
the defendant-company had entered into an agreement
EX. PW1/F. Self stated that the agreement Ex. PW1/F
was pertaining to separate path to the plaintiff-firm and
it has nothing to do with anything else. Letter dated
20.06.2010, 08.04.2011 (Mark `C’), 16.06.2011 (Mark
`D’), 18.12.2011 (Mark `E’), are the photocopies and
without seeing the original copies, I could not identify
the alleged signatures on the above said documents. It
is incorrect that in the above said letters, the defendant-
company had admitted for deferring the rent of
plaintiff-firm. It is incorrect that since the parties have
mutually agreed for the deferment of the rent since the
signing of the rent agreement Ex.PW1/D, as such there
arises no question of counter claim. It is incorrect that
due to the lack of willingness and non-execution of the
work on the part of the defendant-company, the
plaintiff firm had suffered losses. It is incorrect that the
defendant-company was duty bound to honour the
terms of the agreement Ex.PW1/F. Self stated that the
defendant-company never stopped the movement of the
goods of the plaintiff-firm and the path is still available
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
for them as of date. It is incorrect that since the
defendant-company have not complied with the terms
of the agreement Ex.PW1.F, therefore, the plaintiff-firm
is entitled to Rupees Eight crores from the defendant-
company. It is incorrect that I am deposing false.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
16th October, 2023
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
16.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Yash
Wardhan Chauhan, Advocate, for the plaintiff
Non-Counter Claimant.
Mr. Kanwar Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for
the defendant/ Counter Claimant.
Statement of Shri P. Arun Kumar is recorded as
DW3. As per the office report, the summons issued to the
witness at Sl. No.3 in the list witnesses is still awaited. Let
the fresh summons be issued for the service of witness
mentioned at Sl. No.3, in the list of witnesses for the date to
the fixed by Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
16th October, 2023
(Pritam)
In compliance to the order dated 13.10.2023 of
Worthy Registrar General, the statements of S/Shri Padam
Dev Sharma, the then Court Master of Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Retd.), Shri Duni Chand, the
then Restorer and Shri Rohit, Dealing Assistant of the case
file (CWP No. 2521 of 2019), are recorded.
Thereafter, the directions are also issued to all the
concerned Section Officers and Dealing Assistants of the
Judicial Branch to trace the said judicial record in their
respective Sections.
Further, as per the reports of the concerned Branches,
no such record has been found in their respective Branches.
However, Section Officer of the CWPOA Branch has
submitted that on 30.10.2019, CWPOA Branch was not in
existence. The above said reports of the concerned Section
Officers are annexed herewith for kind perusal and
consideration.
It is further submitted that sincere efforts for tracing
the record are made in the Judicial Branch, but the concerned
record is not found in the Judicial Branch.
Accordingly, the report is submitted alongwith the
statements of the above said persons for kind perusal and
consideration.
Submitted, please.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
16.10.2023
Worthy Registrar General
Civil Suit No. 118 of 2019
17.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Rohit, Advocate vice Mr. Sumit Sood,
Advocate, for the defendants.
Shri Sanjay Kumar (Plaintiff No.1) is present today.
Learned vice counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment
on the ground that the original counsel is not available to
cross examine the witness who is present in the Court today.
The request of the adjournment is not opposed by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff. Accordingly, the witness (Shri
Sanjay Kumar) is discharged for today. Learned counsel for
the Plaintiff submits that they will produce the said witness
on self responsibility on the next date of hearing.
Let the case be listed before the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) for fixing the next date for PWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
17th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 43 of 2017
18.10.2023
Present: – Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Jeet Singh Bhogal and Ms. Sawati
Verma, Advocates, for the respondents along
with (Mr. Rajesh Thakur sole respondent).
Learned counsel for the applicant has moved
an application for submission of the Security Bond. The
Security Bond alongwith details of the property in favour of the
applicant alongwith the report of the Patwari are annexed with
the Security Bond. The applicant has been duly identified by
Mr. Tarun Jeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate.
I have gone through the orders of the Hon’ble Court
as well as the Security Bond and the documents annexed
herewith. Application is allowed. Accordingly, the Security
Bond is accepted and attested by me. The same be tagged with
the case file. Let follow up action be taken in compliance to
order dated 08.08.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 76 of 2015
18.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for
defendants No. 1 and 2. (Memo of
appearance filed).
Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for
defendant No.3.
Learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 and
2 submits that the defendants No.1 and 2 has recently engaged
him and the power of attorney on behalf of the aforesaid
defendants is still awaited and in the absence of the power of
attorney, he is unable to cross examine the witnesses. Learned
counsel seeks four weeks time for filing the power of attorney.
However, learned counsel for the plaintiff has
submitted that no witness from the plaintiff side is present
today and he also seeks adjournment. Prayed of the learned
counsel is allowed.
Let the first two witnesses mentioned in the list of
witnesses of the plaintiff dated 26.06.2023 be summoned on
self responsibility for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th October, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 5209 of 2019 in RSA No. 464 of 2012
18.10.2023
Present: – None.
The case is listed for the applicants witnesses today.
As per office report, steps have not been taken by the
applicants for AWs. The perusal of the file shows that
twelve opportunities have already been granted to the
applicants for taking the steps, but needful has not been
done till date.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th October, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9395 of 2018 in RSA No. 112 of 2018
19.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Advocate, vice Ms.
Shweta Joolka, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. Kiran Kumar Chauhan and Mr. Subhash
Chander, Advocates vice Mr. Dushyant
Dadwal, Advocate for the respondents.
Learned vice counsel for the respondents have
submitted that no witness on behalf of respondents are present
today. Learned counsel further submits that they are unable to
produce Shri Atul Sharma witness mentioned at Sl. No. 3 on its
own responsibility and submitted that the summons may be
issued to him for his appearance. Learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that they have received the
communication from witness Ishwar Dass that due to his ill
health, he is unable to come to the Court today. Photocopy of
the Medical prescription slip has been produced, which is taken
on record. Further, as per the report on the summons of the
witness Ravinder Kumar, he has refused to take the summon on
account of some function in his house on 19.10.2023.
Let fresh steps be taken within fifteen days and
thereafter process be issued for the service of witnesses
mentioned at Sl. No. 3, 4 and 5 in the list of witnesses of the
respondents, for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2021
19.10.2023
Present: – Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for
the appellant.
Vide order dated 11.09.2023, the Hon’ble
Court has fixed the date i.e., 25.09.2023, for recording the
statement of the official, who has affixed the proclamation.
On account of the undersigned casual absence, the case was
listed before Registrar (Administration) on 25.09.2023.
The perusal of the order dated 25.09.2023, passed
by the Registrar (Administration), shows that LC Priyanka 316,
PP Junga, District Shimla, was present on that day but she was
discharged on that day and her statement was not recorded due
to non-appearance on behalf of the State.
Since the actual date for recording the statement of
the official has been fixed by the Hon’ble Court and on that
date the statement has not been recorded, therefore, let the
matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate
orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th October, 2023
(Pritam)
a) That the communication has been received from the
students of Degree College Sabathu Himachal Pradesh who are
studying in the said college. It is averred that on 14.10.2022,
the aforesaid degree college has been acquired/taken over by
the Government of Himachal Pradesh due to which all the
students have been benefited. There are about 135 students
who are studying the in the said college and most of the
students belong to schedule caste and poor strata of the society,
who cannot take education from some other colleges. Since the
college has been taken over by the Government of Himachal
Pradesh, therefore, 90 students have taken admission in B.A.
and B.Com 1st year. It is further averred that at the time of
admission, the local M.L.A. who was present there had assured
that he will get the appointments of the Professors done in the
college at the earliest.
b) That as of date there are only two Professors (History and
Hindi) in the college due to which the students are facing
problem in their studies.
There is no Professor of commerce stream . Half yearly and
the final examination are near but the Government is not
paying any heed regarding the appointment of the Professors
due to which their future is seeing to be in dark.
c) That the students by way of this petition are seeking
directions to the government of Himachal Pradesh for
appointment of the Professors in every stream in their college.
Civil Suit No. 120 of 2012
20.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Raman Ravi Verma, Advocate, vice
Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
None for defendants, No. 1,2 and 7.
Mr. Anil Kumar Kashyap vice Mr. Aman
Sood, Advocate for defendant No.3.
Mr. Rohit, Advocate, vice Mr. Sumit Sood,
Advocate, for the defendant No.4.
Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocate vice Mr. C.N.
Singh, Advocate, for defendants No. 5 and 6.
As per the office report fresh steps for
summoning the plaintiff’s witness have not been taken.
Moreover, as per office report an application under Section 89
CPC for referring the matter to Arbitration has been filed on
behalf of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the adjudication of the application under
Section 89 CPS is required before the evidence is adduced by
the parties to the lis. Accordingly, let the said application be
listed before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 7 of 2023
20.10.2023
Present: – Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocate, vice
Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate for the
defendants.
As per the office report, the original
documents have not been filed by the parties in compliance to
the order dated 22.09.2023 of the Hon’ble Court. Learned
counsel for the parties are seeking some more time to do the
needful.
Since the actual date for admission and denial has
been given by the Hon’ble Court, therefore, it would not be
appropriate to the undersigned to extend the time for admission
and denial. Therefore, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th October, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
30.10.2023
Present: – Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the non-
applicants-respondents.
As per office report, summons issued to
witness Gulam Ali, has been received back after due service.
Learned counsel for the applicant has
submitted that due to marriage of brother of the said witness, he
is unable to come to the Court for adducing his evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment for today.
Let fresh summons be issued for service of
Gulam Ali, after taking steps by the applicants within two
weeks, for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
30th October, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS No. 13 of 2019
31.10.2023
Present: – Mr. Rihan, Advocate, vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for the
defendants.
As per office report, the witnesses are
required to be produced by the plaintiff on self responsibility.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the
witnesses are on the way, however, he is seeking adjournment
as the original counsel Mr. P.P. Chauhan, has suffered heart
stroke and is admitted in the hospital. Learned vice counsel for
the plaintiff has submitted that the witnesses will be produced
on self responsibility on the next date. The adjournment sought
by the learned vice counsel for the plaintiff has not been
opposed by the learned counsel for the defendants.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for
today. Let the case be listed before the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) for fixing the next date for PWs on which date the
plaintiff’s evidence be produce on self responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
31st October, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 114 of 2021
31.10.2023
Present: – Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Dinesh Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Karun
Negi, Advocate, for defendant No.1.
Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate for
defendants No. 2 and 3.
As per office report, an application under
Order VII Rule 14 CPC for placing on record of some
documents has been filed by the plaintiff, which has been
registered as OMP No. 523 of 2023.
Though, Shri Brij Lal Belwal, officer
concerned from the office of ROC Delhi and Haryana is
present but the learned counsel for the defendants has
submitted that they want to file the reply to the application of
the plaintiff and adjudication on the application is required
before the evidence is led by the plaintiff.
The expenses to the tune of Rs.4000/- of the
witness, who is present in the Court today, has been paid in
cash by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Since the application for placing on record
filed by the plaintiff is pending adjudication, therefore, let the
case be listed before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
31st October, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS No. 19 of 2019
01.11.2023
Present: – Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate, for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Navneet Bhalla, Advocate, for the
defendants-Counter Claimants.
As per office report, the witnesses at Serial
No. 3 to 5 in the list of witnesses, are duly served. Shri Gopi
Singh, Assistant Engineer O/o Municipal Corporation Solan, is
present today.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has
submitted that he want to examine plaintiff at the first instance
and thereafter the other witnesses may be examined.
Moreover, there is no application under Order 18 Rule 3(A)
CPC, therefore, the plaintiff is required to be examined at the
first instance before the examination of any other witnesses.
Accordingly, the witness Shri Gopi Singh,
present in the Court today is discharged.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further
submits that he will produce the first two witnesses in the list of
witnesses on self responsibility on the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, the summons to the other witnesses shall be
issued only after the examination of the plaintiff.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for PWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st November, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 2 of 2020
02.11.2023
Present: – Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, alongwith
plaintiff in person.
Mr. Pyush Agnihotri, Advocate, vice Mr.
Dheeraj K. Vashishth with Ms. Shivani
Thakur W/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Thakur
defendant No.1.
Defendant No.2 already ex-parte.
Learned vice counsel for defendant No.1, has
submitted that the defendant No.1 has taken the case file from
him and henceforth he will not appear on behalf of defendant
No.1. Ms. Shivani Thakur, who is present in the Court today
has submitted that her husband requires at least one month’s
time to engage new Advocate and to handover the case file to
the newly engaged Advocate.
As per office report, Branch Manager, SBI
Gagret Branch, Una and Branch Manager Punjab National
Bank Gagret, Una, are duly served. Shri Amit Kumar, Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Gagret, Una and Shri Vishal
Sandhu, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Gagret Una,
are present today.
Since Ms. Shivani Thakur W/o defendant
No.1, is seeking time for engaging new Advocate on behalf of
defendant No.1, therefore, these witnesses could not be
examined today. Accordingly, both the witnesses present
today, are discharged.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
they have filed one fresh list of witness on 27.04.2023, but the
Civil Suit No. 2 of 2020
same is not on record. Learned counsel has further submitted
that the name of witnesses are same in the fresh list of
witnesses but the detail of the documents, which are required to
be produced are deficient in the earlier list of witnesses filed on
05.09.2022.
No prejudice will caused to anybody, if the fresh
list of witness is taken on record at this stage, as the statement
of the witnesses are yet to be recorded. Accordingly, the same
is taken on record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has paid
the expenses in cash to the witnesses present in the Court
today.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) after the filing of fresh power of attorney
on behalf of defendant No.1, for fixing the next date for PWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 924 of 2022 in RSA No. 8982 of 2022(filing No.)
03.11.2023
Present: – Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate, for the
applicant (MOA filed).
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, along with
Shri Surinder Rawat (respondent in person)
for the respondent.
.
Mr. Pranav Kumar Kaushal and Shri Sameer
Miyan, Advocates, have filed the memo of appearance on
behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel have submitted that
the counsel previously engaged by the applicant has left this
case and now they have been engaged by the applicant.
Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has not yet
handed over the case file to him, therefore, they seek
adjournment. Learned counsel for the respondent has not
opposed the request of the learned counsel for the applicant.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for today. Let
the power of attorney on behalf of the applicant be filed within
two weeks.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of evidence on behalf of
the applicant after filing of the power of attorney on behalf of
the applicant.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 4376 of 2023 in RSA No. 247 of 2020
RW-3: Statement of Sh. Tilak Raj, S/o Ishwar Dass,
R/o Village Kairi, P.O. and Tehsil Shahpur,
District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh
On Oath
03.11.2023
Stated that the applicants-appellants had filed an
RSA before the Hon’ble High Court. The photographs
Mark C, D and E pertains to my house. I have not raised
any construction after the decision of First Appellate Court
at Dharamshala. I have not raised any construction after the
stay order of the Hon’ble High Court and has not
disobeyed the order of Hon’ble Court at any time.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Sanjay Jaswal
Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
It is in correct that I have raised my house on the
disputed land. It is correct that the suit land is joint
property and I am one of the co-owner in the said land. It is
incorrect that the construction, which is shown in the
photographs Mark C to E has been raised by me in the
month of April, 2022. Self stated that the construction in
the photographs Mark C to D pertains to the year 2019. I
was aware of the stay orders of the Hon’ble High Court.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 4376 of 2023 in RSA No. 247 of 2020
RW-3: Statement of Sh. Subhash Chander, Advocate,
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
Without Oath
03.11.2023
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of the
respondents since the list of witnesses has been exhausted.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 4376 of 2023 in RSA No. 247 of 2020
03.11.2023
Present: – Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for the
applicant-appellant.
Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate, for the
respondents.
.
Statement of Shri Tilak Raj is recorded as RW3.
Learned counsel for the respondents vide his separate statement
has closed the evidence on behalf of the respondents.
Accordingly, let the case/CMP be listed before the
Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 967 of 2023 in RSA No. RSAST No. 21332 of 2023
03.11.2023
Present: – None for the applicant.
Mr. Dalip Chand, Advocate, vice counsel for
the respondents.
.
As per the office report, rejoinder to the reply to
CMP No. 967 of 2023, is still awaited and steps i.e. PF, Road
and Diet Money and List of Witnesses have not been filed as
yet.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen days,
thereafter, the process be issued for the service of the witnesses
for 15.12.2023. However, not more than two witnesses be
summoned for the said date.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 1244 of 2022 in RSA No. 18567 of 2022
04.11.2023
Present: – Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate, vice Mr.
Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
applicant.
None for the respondents.
.
As per the office report, steps i.e. list of witnesses
PF road and diet money for the service of the witnesses have
not been filed till date. Learned counsel for the applicant
seeks some more time for doing the needful.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen day,
thereafter, the process be issued for the service of applicants
witnesses for 26.12.2023. However, not more than two
witnesses be summoned for the said date.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2022
04.11.2023
Present: – Ms. Diksha Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr.
Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate, for
the applicant.
Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
respondents.
As per the office report, steps under Order XVI
Rule 1 of CPC have not been taken by both the parties.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant as well as learned
counsel for the respondents are seeking some more time for
taking the steps in compliance to the Hon’ble Court’s order.
Since there is a specific order from the Hon’ble
Court that the steps be taken by both the parties within
fifteen days, failing which, no assistance shall be given to the
defaulting party. Therefore, the undersigned cannot extend
the time already granted by the Hon’ble Court.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 669 of 2023 in RSAST No. 16082 of 2023
06.11.2023
Present: – Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General,
for the applicant.
Mr. Vanshaj Azad, Advocate vice Mr.
Rajul Chauhan, for the respondent.
As per the office report, the i.e., list of witness,
PF and road and diet money for the service of AWs have not
been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General seeks some
more time for doing the needful.
Let the steps be taken within two weeks,
thereafter, the process be issued for the service of AWs
returnable for 20.12.20223.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 5990 of 2020 in RSA No. 513 of 2016
RW-1: Statement of Sh. Gopal Thakur, S/o Shri Beli
Ram, R/o Village Dhalogi, P.O. Fozal, Tehsil
and District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
06.11.2023
Stated that the parties to the lis are known to me.
The village Gadherani is about 27 Kms. Away from my
village. Panna Lal respondent is related to me due to which
I am in visiting terms at village Gadherani. Smt. Maya
Devi plaintiff-appellant has been married towards
Manikaran side. The distance between Manikaran and
Gadherani is about 50 Kms. I have seen the land pertaining
to Ram Dass at village Gadherani. Maya Devi is not in
possession of land at village Gadherani. Tula Ram and
Panna Lal have constructed a parking at Village Gadherani
adjacent to the road in the year 2007-2008. They have not
raised any new construction thereafter at village Gadherani.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Kapil Dev Sood, Senior
Advocate with Shri Het Ram Thakur,
Advocate.
Smt. Maya Devi plaintiff is real sister of Tula
Ram and Panna Lal. Ram Dass has expired 5-6 years ago.
It is correct that dispute regarding succession of the
property of Ram Dass is going between the appellant and
respondents. It is correct that Ram Dass was owner of
apple orchard. I do not know the Khasra Numbers of that
orchard. It is incorrect that any of the party has cut the
apple trees in that orchard. It is correct that Ram Dass has
also not cut the apple trees in his orchard during his life
CMP No. 5990 of 2020 in RSA No. 513 of 2016
time. The parking has been constructed by the respondents
during the life time of Ram Dass. It is incorrect that for
raking the parking by the respondents, they have cut the
apple trees from the orchard. I am not aware that the High
Court has passed any stay order in the case between the
parties. I am not aware that any of the parties had lodged
complaint in the police regarding cutting of the apple trees
or any disobedience of the Hon’ble High Court. No
construction has been raised by the respondents on the suit
land. I visited village Gadheri last month. I am not
conversant with the site which is shown in the photographs
Ex. AW6/B to AW6/J. I do not know that the respondents
are raising construction on Khasra No. 340 and the above
said photographs pertains to Khasra No. 254 and 340. The
parking of the respondents is about 200 mtrs., away from
the house of the respondents. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
6th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 5990 of 2020 in RSA No. 513 of 2016
RW-2: Statement of Sh. Nimat Ram, S/o Shri Nathu
Ram, R/o Village Gadherani, P.O. Kalath,
Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
06.11.2023
Stated that the parties to the lis are known to me
as they are related to me. Smt. Maya Devi plaintiff has
been married in Manikaran area. The in laws of Smt. Maya
Devi are about 60-70 Kms., away of village Gadherani.
Ram Dass had expired about 12-13 years ago. The
property of Ram Dass is situated at village Gadherani. Smt.
Maya Devi is not in possession of any of the properties of
her father Shri Ram Dass. The properties of Shri Ram Dass
has been possessed by his sons. The respondents have
raised the parking on the suit land about -6-7 years ago. Self
stated they have constructed a Hotel at village Gadherani.
There are two Hotels of the respondents. One Hotel was
constructed by Shri Ram Dass and the other Hotel has been
constructed by Tule Ram. The distance between my house
and the disputed land is about ½ kilometer.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Kapil Dev Sood, Senior
Advocate with Shri Het Ram Thakur,
Advocate.
The Hotel has been constructed by Tula Ram 6-7
years ago. Self stated that the same has not been
constructed by him on his father land, however, the same
has been constructed by purchasing the separate land by
him. I do not know the property which the subject matter
of the suit. I do not know the Khasra Numbers on which
CMP No. 5990 of 2020 in RSA No. 513 of 2016
the Hotels have been constructed. I do not know that the
appellant Maya Devi had lodged complaints to the police
and the authorities regarding cutting of the apple trees and
raising construction for parking and house. The
construction shown in Ex. AW6/F, G, H and J, pertains to
the members of the family and the property as reflected in
the photographs still exists as of date. Photographs Ex.
AW6/B to Ex. AW6/E may be the photographs of the said
disputed property. I do not know the construction apparent
on the photographs Ex. AW6/B to Ex. AW6/J, was being
raised by the respondents in the year 2020. It is incorrect
that the construction in the photographs has been made by
the respondents after cutting the apple trees. I do know the
year in which construction has been raised as shown in the
above said photographs. Self stated that I am illiterate
person. It is incorrect that I am deposing false since I am in
hand in glove with the respondents. Self stated that both
the parties are in relation to me. I do not know whether
Smt. Maya Devi has challenged the will of her father Ram
Dass. It is correct that there is no vacant land in the vicinity
of the disputed land.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
6th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 5990 of 2020 in RSA No. 513 of 2016
06.11.2023
Present: – Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with
Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Shri
Het Ram, Advocate, for the respondents.
Statement of Shri Gopal Thakur and Nimat Ram,
are recorded as RW1 and RW2, respectively. Ms. Bhavna
Devi, Senior Assistant of RSA Section of this Registry is
also present with the record. Learned counsel for the non-
applicant has submitted that due to inadvertence they have
failed to apply for the certified copy, which are required to
be tendered and proved from the witness summoned from the
High Court. Learned counsel submits that the witness with
the record may be allowed to be summoned again.
Accordingly, the witness Ms. Bhavna Devi,
Senior Assistant, RSA Section of this Registry is discharged
for today. Let the fresh summons be issued for the service of
remaining witnesses on the date fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial). Steps, if any, be taken within two
weeks.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th November, 2023
(Pritam)
06.11.2023
Present: – Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General,
for the applicant.
Mr. Vanshaj Azad, Advocate vice Mr.
Rajul Chauhan, for the respondent.
As per the office report, the i.e., list of witness,
PF and road and diet money for the service of AWs have not
been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General seeks some
more time for doing the needful.
Let the steps be taken within two weeks,
thereafter, the process be issued for the service of AWs
returnable for 20.12.20223.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 4584 of 2019 in RSA No. 164 of 2019
07.11.2023
Present: – Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Vide order dated 23.08.2023, the learned counsel
for the applicant has submitted that they will produce Shri
Sunil Kumar, at their own responsibility. Shri Sunil Kumar
witness is present today. However, learned senior counsel for
the applicant submits that he has to move appropriate
application so that the photographs placed on record could be
proved in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the
applicant seeks adjournment, which is not opposed by the
learned counsel for the opposite party.
Accordingly, the witness present today is
discharged. Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court
after filing the appropriate application by the learned senior
counsel for the applicant.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th November, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2021
08.11.2023
Present: – Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General,
for the appellant.
Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that
the State has made correspondence to the Superintendent of
Police, Solan, Himachal Pradesh on 02.11.2023, informing
the orders of the Hon’ble Court qua recording of the
statement of the official, who has affixed the copy of notice
under Section 82 of the Cr. PC.
Learned Deputy Advocate General further
submits that neither any official has come to the Court today
nor any communication has been received from the side of
Superintendent of Police, Solan.
Accordingly, the statement could not be recorded.
Since the actual date for recording of the statement of official
concerned has been given by the Hon’ble Court, therefore,
the time cannot be extended by the undersigned. Let the
matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate
orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 1532 of 2019 a/w CMP(M) No. 1533
AW-1: Statement of Sh. Shyam Dass aged about 63
years S/o Nakli Ram, Village & P.O.
Ranikotla, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.
On Oath
08.11.2023
Stated that I came to know about the award of
the reference Court from my relative in the year 2018.
Thereafter, I visited the office of the Advocate at Bilaspur
and asked him to apply for the copy. The Advocate at
Bilaspur told me that the compensation has been awarded to
us on lesser side and he further advised us to file an appeal
against the award in the High Court at Shimla. Due to the
non-information of the passing of the award, death of our
father Shri Nakli and paucity of the funds also we could
not file the appeal in time.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Romesh Verma, Senior
Advocate with Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
Advocate.
I do not remember the date of the passing of the
award by the learned District Judge Bilaspur. I came to
know about the passing of the award in the year 2018 when
the other persons started to get the compensation amount. I
came to know about the award from Shri Amar Nath who
got the compensation pursuant to that award. I do not
remember the date and month, however, I got applied for
the copy of the award in the year 2018 from my Advocate.
I received the certified copy of the award after about one
and half months from it applying. It is incorrect that I was
aware of the passing of the award I intentionally did not file
CMP (M) No. 1532 of 2019 a/w CMP(M) No. 1533
the appeal in time. It is incorrect that my father has
wrongly averred all the facts in application for
condonation of delay. I have not read the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by my father. I do not
know in the application for condonation of delay my father
has averred that he came to about the passing of the award
in the month of August, 2018. I am aware that before
August 2018 my father had filed an Execution Petition
before the reference Court. I do not remember that in that
Execution Petition notices had been issued to the
respondents for 15.01.2018. I am not aware that the
respondents had filed the objection in that Execution
Petition before the reference Court. I do not know on
27.07.2019, out Advocate had withdrawn the Execution
Petition before the reference Court. It is correct that on
account of the agreement dated 03.04.2008 executed
between my father and J.P. Himachal Cement Plant
(respondent No.2) my father had received an amount of
Rs.6,83,710/-. Self stated that, that amount was paid to my
father regarding widening of curb on the road. It is correct
that the said amount was paid by respondent No.2 (J.P.
Cement Plant Bagga). I indentify signature of my Father
Ex. AW1/A in red circle on the agreement dated
03.04.2008. I do not know that in view of the receiving of
the said amount my father had executed an affidavit to that
effect. I indentify signature of my Father Ex. AW1/B in red
circle on the receipt issued on 05.04.2008, by the J.P.
Cement Plant. It is incorrect that we do not have sufficient
CMP (M) No. 1532 of 2019 a/w CMP(M) No. 1533
amount event after receiving the compensation amount
from respondent No.2 to file the appeal. My father had
expired on 15.02.2020. It is correct that at the time of filing
of the appeal my father was alive. It is incorrect that my
father was earlier satisfied with the award amount but
thereafter due to greed this RFA has been filed on false
ground. It is incorrect that I am deposing false.
xxx xxx xxx Ms. Sunaina, Deputy
Advocate General, High Court of Himachal
Pradesh.
I adopt the cross examination of respondent
No.2.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
8th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 1532 of 2019 a/w CMP(M) No. 1533
AW-2: Statement of Sh. Hariman @ Hari Ram aged
about 68 years S/o Shri Ganga Ram, Village &
P.O. Ranikotla, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur,
H.P.
On Oath
08.11.2023
Stated that I came to know about the award of
the reference Court from Shri Amar Nath in the year 2018,
when he received the compensation amount. Thereafter, I
contacted out Advocate at Bilaspur. Our Advocate
informed us that compensation amount has been awarded
by the reference Court on lesser side and he also advised us
to file appeal against the award. After arranging the money
we came to Shimla for filing the appeal in the meanwhile
we also asked our Advocate to apply for the copy of the
award for filing the appeal.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Romesh Verma, Senior
Advocate with Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
Advocate.
I do not know the date of the passing of the
award by the learned District Judge Bilaspur. I do not
remember the date and month, however, Amar Nath told us
about the award in the year 2018. I do not remember the
month in which we asked out Advocate for applying the
copy of award. Self stated that we applied for the copy in
the year 2018. In the same year, we received the certified
copy of the award. I do not remember that we had filed an
Execution Petition before the reference Court in which the
summon has been issued to the respondent for 15.01.2018.
It is correct that in the Execution Petition we have engaged
CMP (M) No. 1532 of 2019 in RSA
Shri Nand Lal, Thakur as Counsel. I do not know that the
said Execution Petition was withdrawn by out Advocate on
22.06.2019. It is correct that I have received an amount of
Rs. 2,32,904/- from respondent No.2. I identify my
signature Ex. AW2/A in red circle on the agreement dated
03.04.2008. In pursuance to that I executed an affidavit
acknowledging the above said amount. It is correct that my
brother Shri Gopal Dass has also received an amount of
Rs.2,32,903/- from J.P. Cement Plant. It is incorrect that
we do not have any paucity at any point of time since we
have received the compensation amount. It is incorrect that
I am deposing false.
xxx xxx xxx Ms. Sunaina, Deputy
Advocate General, High Court of Himachal
Pradesh.
I adopt the cross examination of respondent
No.2.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
8th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 1532 of 2019 a/w CMP(M) No. 1533
08.11.2023
Present: – Mr. Pushpinder Kumar, Advocate with Mr.
B.S. Thakur, Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for
respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent No.2.
Statement of witnesses Shri Shaym Dass and Shri
Hariman are recorded as AW1 and AW2, respectively.
Learned counsel for the applicant vide his separate statement
has closed the evidence on behalf of the applicant. Learned
senior counsel for the respondents seeks time for RWs. Let
the steps, if any, be taken within fifteen days. Thereafter,
the process be issued for the service of RWs for the date to
be fixed by Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 1532 of 2019 a/w CMP(M) No. 1533
Statement of Sh. Pushpinder Kumar, Advocate,
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
Without Oath
08.11.2023
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf
applicants.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
8th November, 2023
(Pritam)
COPC No. 106 of 2018
09.11.2023
Present: Shri Hitesh Thakur with Sh. Romesh Verma,
Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Kusum, Advocate, vice Ms. Seema K
Guleria, Advocate, for the respondents.
The learned vice counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that no witness is present today. He seeks time
for producing the remaining witnesses and seeks
adjournment today.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for today.
Let the remaining witnesses be produced on self
responsibility on the next date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar Judicial.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
09th November , 2023
(gaurav)
Civil Suit No. 65 of 2011
DW-1: Statement of Sh. Shiv Kumar aged about 53
years S/o Shri Ram Lok Garg, Village
Ambwala & P.O. Panjehara, Tehsil Nalagarh,
District Solan, H.P.
On Oath
10.11.2023
Stated that I have entered into an agreement for
sale with the plaintiffs qua sale of the land measuring 335
bighas. Out of the total land of 335 Bhigas I had entered
into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell 220 Bhigas @
Rs. 2,80,000/- per Bigha. The parties to the agreement had
agreed that the registry of the aforesaid land is to be
executed within one month from the date of agreement
initially qua 50 Bhigas of the land. The plaintiffs before
entering into the agreement to sale verified all the Revenue
documents from the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiffs
also met personally with the land owners who were agreed
to sell their land pursuant to the agreement. In spite of
agreement to sell the plaintiffs did not adhere to the terms
of the agreement and the sale deed was not registered by the
plaintiffs. Therefore, they have been fully breach the terms
and conditions of the agreement. I personally met the
plaintiffs and requested for the execution of the sale deed
but the plaintiffs did not pay any heed to my request. The
plaintiffs had forged first page of the agreement to sell Ex.
PW8/A and thereby change the terms and conditions of the
agreement. The plaintiffs in the first page of the agreement
Ex. PW8/A has averred that the entire land belongs to me
however, I have also entered into the agreement to sell with
the other co-owner of the land who had agreed to sell the
land to the plaintiffs. Again stated that in the first page of
the agreement the plaintiff has changed the wording that the
seller has purchased about 220 Bhigas of the land from
various land owners through registered sale deed for which
mutation No. 700 had been sanctioned in his favour on
7.5.2007 out of the entire land. In fact, as stated above I
had also entered into an agreement to sell with the other
owners of the land who had interested to sell the land to the
plaintiffs. I repeatedly requested the plaintiffs to get the
sale deed executed, but they intentionally and willfully did
not executed the sale deed and as they were not ready and
willing to perform their part of the agreement from the very
initiation. I am ready to perform my part of the agreement
as of today as per the prevailing market price. The plaintiff
has filed a false case against me without any basis, as I am
always ready and willing to sell the property as per the
agreement.
xxx xxx xxx Shri G.D.Verma Sr.
Advocate assisted by Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
The plaintiffs are known to me for the year
2007. I met the plaintiffs through the son of Patwari Sh.
Devinder Kumar Gupta.I do not know that the plaintiffs
have examined Sh. Devinder Kumar Gupta as PW-8. Sh.
Devdinder Kumar Gupat is the resident of Dharmpur
District Solan. It is correct that Devinder Gupta(PW-8)
convened the meeting with the plaintiffs and myself. It is
correct that in that meeting negotiations were conducted
regarding the sale and purchase of the land in suit. It is
correct that during the negations I have disclosed to the
plaintiffs that I have land in village Teedon and Dahar
and the price of the land @ Rs. 2,80,000/- per bigha. I have
entered into the agreement in the plaintiffs show room at
Salogra, District Solan. It is incorrect that I had disclosed
to the plaintiffs that the mutation No.700 has been attested
in my favour for the land measuring 220 bhigas. I was
introduced to the plaintiffs by Sh. Devinder Kumar Gupta
one week prior to the date of the execution of the
agreement. It is correct that the agreement to sell was
executed at Salogra on 19.07.2007. Self stated that the first
page of the agreement Ex. PW8/A has been forged by the
plaintiffs subsequently. By changing the first page the
plaintiffs have amended the details and specifications of the
land. It is correct that I am also know as S.K. Garg. It is
correct that my fathers name is Sh. R.K. Garg. On
19.07.2007 the plaintiffs handed over to me two cheques
amounting to Rs. 25lacs and 35 lacs. It is correct that on the
same date the plaintiffs gave me 2.5lacs in cash pursuant to
the agreement to sell. It is incorrect that negations
pertaining to sale and purchase of the land were started
between us prior to 07.06.2007. Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o
Sh. Chetter Singh, Stamp Vendor at Kandaghat is known to
me. I do not know that the plaintiffs have examined Sh.
Ravinder Kumar as PW-7 in the present case on
02.03.2015. I do not know that the agreement to sell Ex.
PW8/A was drafted on the stamp papers which were
purchased by me above said stamp vendor on 07.06.2007.
It is incorrect that the stamp papers which is in the court file
as Ex.PW8/A are the same which were purchased by me. It
is correct that cheques amounting to Rs. 25lacs and 35 lacs
have been credited in my bank account. I have not placed
on record any specific jamabandi pertaining to the sale of
50 bhigas of the land for which the sale deed was to be
executed initially. Self stated that I have placed on record
entire jamabandi of the land on record. I was ready to
execute the sale deed pertaining to the 50 bhigas of the land
which is shown in jamabandi for the year 2006-07 Ex.
PW6/K and Ex. PW6/L. It is correct that I am not owner in
possession of the land specified in Ex PW6/K and Ex.
PW6/L. Self state I have entered into an agreement to sell
with the owners of the said land. Smt Saraswati widow of
Kirpal Singh etc. are owner of the said land which is shown
in Ex. PW6/K and Ex. PW6/L. The owners of the said land
had entered into the agreement with me @ of 1.25lacs per
bhiga. I entered into the agreement with the owners of the
said land in the year 2007. I had paid an amount of Rs. 1.12
crore to the owners of the entire land measuring 335
Bhigas. mentioned in Ex. PW6/K and Ex. PW6/L. I have
paid the entire amount for the entire land to the land owner
which I had entered into the agreement to sell which was to
be disbursed amongst the land owners as per their share.
Self stated that I had also paid the commission amounting
to Rs. 2lacs to Sh. Lakhwinder Singh who is related to the
land owners. I had entered into three agreements to sell
pertaining to the entire land measuring 335 Bhigas. I had
not placed above said three agreements in the Court. I have
not filed any civil suit against the land owners on the basis
of the above said three agreements. Self stated that I have
good relations with the land owners due to which I have not
filed any Civil suit against them. It is correct that one
criminal case pending adjudication in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Solan, self stated that has been filed against me
on wrong facts. I do not know the original agreement
pertaining to this case has been filed in that criminal case. It
is incorrect that receipt pertaining to Rs. 2,50,000/- is the
same vide which I had received the said amount in cash. I
also deny the entire agreement Ex. PW8/A.
At this stage, ld. Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs has
submitted the witness is required to be confronted with the
original to agreement to sale as well as other documents
which are placed in the criminal file which are pending for
adjudication in the Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate, Solan.
The learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that he will take the
further course of action for summoning the record of ld.
JMIC.
Accordingly, the cross-examination of the witness is
deferred today.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th November, 2023
(gaurav)
Civil Suit No. 65of 2011
10.11.2023
Present: Shri G.D.Verma, learned Sr. Advocate with
Sh. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the
plaintiffs
Sh. Beli Ram Sharma, Advocate, for the
defendant.
Sh. Shiv Kumar DW-1 was present for
adducing evidence. During cross-examination learned Sr.
Advocate for the plaintiffs has submitted that the witness is
required to be confronted with the original agreement to sell
as well as other documents which are placed in the Criminal
file which is pending for adjudication in the Court of
learned JMIC, Solan. The learned Sr. Advocate further
submitted that he will take the appropriate further course of
action for summoning the record of the learned JMIC.
Accordingly, the cross-examination of this
witness is deferred.
Let the case be listed in the Hon’ble Court as
and when the steps for summoning of the record of learned
Court of JMIC, Solan is taken by the learned Sr. Advocate.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
09th November , 2023
(gaurav)
CMP(M) No. 2019 of 2019 in RSA
16.11.2023
Present: Shri Aditya Chauhan, Advocate, vice counsel
for applicant/ appellant.
Ms. Hem Lata Vyas, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1(a) to 1(f).
Respondent No.2 already ex-parte.
As per office report, steps for the service of
witnesses have not been taken by the applicant. Learned
vice counsel seeks some more time for taking the steps.
Let the steps be taken within two weeks,
thereafter, the process be issued for service of AWs for the
date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
16th November , 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 359 of 2018
17.11.2023
Present: Shri Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, vice
Mr. Raj Negi, Advocate, for the appellants.
Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate, vice
Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
None for respondents No. 3 to 6.
Vide order dated 20.10.2023, of the Hon’ble
Court, the parties to the lis were directed to remain present
before the undersigned to admit the compromise. Smt.
Dharmo Devi and Shri Sunil Kumar (Respondents No. 1
and 2) are present, however, the Appellants and Performa
Respondents are not present.
Learned vice counsel for the appellants on
instructions submits that the parties will be produced on the
next date of hearing and he seeks adjournment for today.
Since the actual date for the presence of parties
has been given by the Hon’ble Court, therefore, the time for
producing the parties cannot be extended by the
undersigned.
Accordingly, the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court on the date already fixed i.e. 24.11.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
17th November, 2023
(Pritam)
Note: Court Master is requested to apprise the Hon’ble
Court about the above said order at the time of hearing of
the matter.
Civil Suit No. 4086 of 2013
DW-1: Statement of Sh. Ayush Negi S/o Late Shri
K.S. Negi, aged about 35 years, presently
working as Assistant Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office
Himland Hotel, Shimla-171 001, Himachal
Pradesh
On Oath
20.11.2023
Stated that I have brought the Authority Letter
as well as Power of Attorney Ex. DW1/A, vide which I
have been authorized to adduce evidence on behalf of the
company. The National Insurance Company vide Board of
Resolution dated Mark D1, dated 16.05.1989, has
authorized all Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional
Managers, Deputy Managers, Assistant Managers and
Administrative Officers and Assistant Branch Managers to
act appear and prosecute defendant adduce evidence on
behalf of the company. Policy DW1/B, Ex. DW1/C and
DW1/D were duly issued by the defendant company in
favour of plaintiff for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004,
03.04.2006 to 02.04.2007 and 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008,
respectively. The terms and conditions of all the three
policies are Mark D2, which were issued at the time of
above said policies. The plaintiff intimated the defendant
company about their claim vide letters Ex.PW1/G to Ex.
PW1/J as well as Ex. PW2/D. After receiving the above
said letters pertaining to the claim of the company, the
defendant company issued the letters Ex.PW1/K and
Ex.PW1/L and asked the plaintiff to provide the policy
details to the defendant company, which were provided
Civil Suit No. 4086 of 2013
vide letter Ex.PW2/E, dated 15.09.2010. Vide Ex PW1/M,
the defendant company asked the plaintiff company to
provide the details of claim and documents like FIR etc.
The claim Forms Ex. PW1/O to PW1/ Q were submitted by
the plaintiff alongwith letter dated 09.12.2010 Ex.PW1/N.
The claims of the plaintiff repudiated by the defendant
company on the basis of the terms and conditions of the
Insurance company vide letters dated 10.03.2011, Ex.
PW1/R to Ex. PW1/T. The terms and conditions which
were filed by the plaintiff alongwith PW2/A, PW2/B and
PW2/C, are not the same, which were issued by the
company at the time of issuance of the policy. The
insurance claim of the company has been rightly repudiated
by the defendant company in view of the terms and
conditions at the time of the issuance of the policies.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Bhjupender Gupta
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Janesh
Gupta, Advocate.
I am working in the Divisional Office of the Insurance
Company Himland Shimla since November 2021. It is
correct that the policies Ex. PW/2A to PW/2C (also
exhibited as DW1/B to DW/D) were not issued during my
tenure in the Branch Office, Shimla. I do not have the
personal knowledge about the documents which were
issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff. It is
incorrect that Mark D2 are not the terms and conditions of
the insurance company which were issued to the plaintiff. It
is incorrect that the terms and conditions which were
Civil Suit No. 4086 of 2013
Civil Suit No. 4086 of 2013
annexed with the plaintiff alongwith the insurance policies
Ex. PW/2A to PW/2C were issued at the time of issuance of
the policies to the plaintiff. I do not know the concerned
official who had issued the policies at the relevant point of
time. It is incorrect that being an official of the insurance
company I am deposing false.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
20th November, 2023
(gaurav)
Civil Suit No. 4086 of 2013
Statement of Shri Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
for defendant Insurance-Company.
Without oath
20.11.2023
Stated that I give up Shri Mohit Yadav,
Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Himland, Shimla being repetitive in
nature and close the evidence on behalf of the defendants.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
20th November, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 4086 of 2013
20.11.2023
Present: Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Shri Yogesh Malhotra and Shri Jagdish
Thakur with Shri Sushant Kishore, Advocates
for the defendants.
Statement of Shri Ayush Negi, is recorcded as
DW/1. Learned counsel for the defendants vide his separate
statement has given up Shri Mohit Yadav and close the
evidence on behalf of defendants. Since the evidence on
behalf of the parties are complete, therefore, the matter be
listed before the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1363 of 2022 in RSAST
AW1 Statement of Shri Hem Raj S/o Shri
Basant Ram aged about 69 years R/o of
Village Batlhu, P.O. Dakhyora, Tehsil
Bijhari, District Hamirpur, Himachal
Pradesh.
On oath
21.11.2023
Stated that the judgment was passed by the first
appellate Court on 30.09.2021. We were not aware about
the date of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court
and we were waiting for the correspondence/information
from our Advocate regarding the next date of hearing. We
have not received any information regarding the next date
in our case, so I visited the office of our counsel at
Ghumarwin in the month of February 2022, on which our
Advocate informed me that no next date has been fixed in
our case. However, the case has finally decided by the
Court. I asked our Advocate for the certified copy of the
judgment then our Advocate informed us that he has
applied the copy of the judgment. We received the copy of
judgment from our counsel late in the month of April 2022,
due to the outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic, during that
period. In the intervening period I also contacted our
Advocate in the High Court on which our counsel in the
High Court informed that there are winter vacations in the
High Court he asked us to come after opening of the Court
after winter vacation. After opening of the High Court we
came to Shimla and handed over the certified copy of the
judgment to our counsel on 26.04.2022 for filing the appeal.
CMP(M) No. 1363 of 2022 in RSAST
Our counsel also asked for the entire case file for
preparation of the appeal. Thereafter, I went again back to
Ghumarwin and contacted my counsel, on which my
counsel at Ghumarwin told that our file has been misplaced
and as and when the file will be traced, he will
telephonically informed me. I received the telephone call
from our Advocate at Ghumarwin in the month of June,
2022 and thereafter collected the file from the office of our
Advocate at Ghumarwin and handed over to my counsel at
High Court in the first week of July, 2022. There is no
intentional or deliberate delay on my part in filing the
appeal.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Neeraj Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Shri Pranjal Munjal, Advocate,
for the respondents
I am Post Graduate. It is incorrect that we did
not take the follow up of our case from our Advocate. Self
stated that being Senior Citizen, it is not possible for me to
go to the Court or to the office of my Advocate personally
on each and every hearing. Moreover, during COVID19
period the Govt. had advised the senior citizens not to move
frequently outside. I do not know the period of limitation
within which the appeal is required to be filed. It is
incorrect that in the month of September-October 2021
onwards the restrictions pertaining to COVID 19 were
relaxed. It is incorrect that I have received the certified
copy of judgment and decree on 20.01.2022. It is incorrect
that I was satisfied with the judgments of the Courts below
CMP(M) No. 1363 of 2022 in RSAST
due to which I did not file the appeal in time. It is incorrect
that in order to harass the respondents, I have filed the
present appeal at belated stage. It is incorrect that I have
intentionally and deliberately did not contact my counsel
either at Ghumarwin or at Shimla for filing the appeal. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1363 of 2022 in RSAST
Statement of Shri Atul Kumar, Advocate for
the applicant
Without oath
21.11.2023
Stated that I give up other witnesses mentioned
in the list of witnesses being repetitive in nature and close
the evidence on behalf of the applicants.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1363 of 2022 in RSAST
21.11.2023
Present: Shri Atul Kumar, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Shri Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri
Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for the non-
applicant/respondent No.1.
Respondents No.3 and 4 already ex-parte.
Statement of Shri Hem Raj, is recorcded as
AW/1. Learned counsel for the applicants vide his separate
statement has given up the other witnesses mentioned in the
list of witnesses being repatative in nature and close the
evidence on behalf of the applicants.
Learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant
seeks time for taking the steps for RWs. Let the steps be
taken within fifteen days, thereafter, the process be issued
for service of RWs returnable for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21st November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 577 of 2023 in RSA No. 350 of 2011
AW1 Statement of Shri Kushal Singh S/o Shri
Jodha Mal aged about 46 years R/o of Village
Dalgaon, P.O. Kutara, Tehsil Rohru, District
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
22.11.2023
Stated that I am posted as Secretary at Gram
Panchayat Karalash, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh. The Birth and Death Register is to be
maintained by the Secretary of the concerned Gram
Panchayat. I have brought the original Birth and Death
Register. As per the record maintained by me in the Gram
Panchayat Shri Jania Ram S/o Shri Thebu Ram, has died on
06.04.2018. The Death Certificate Ex. AW1/A has been
prepared and signed by me which is true and correct as per
the original record brought by me today (original seen and
returned).
xxx xxx xxx Shri Pranjal Munjal, Advocate,
for the respondents
The Death Certificate has been issued by me on
17.05.2023.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 577 of 2023 in RSA No. 350 of 2011
AW2 Statement of Shri Krishan Singh S/o Shri
Singhi Ram aged about 65 years R/o of
Village Thamtari (Karalash, P.O. Kansakoti,
Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh.
On oath
22.11.2023
Stated that I have been intimated by my counsel
on 16.05.2023 that Jania (respondent) has died. My
counsel further asked me to bring the Death Certificate of
Jania, so that steps for bringing on record the LRs of Jania
can be taken. Therafter, I visited the office of Secretary
Gram Panchayat Karalash and verify the fact qua the death
of Jania and applied for the Death Certificate of respondent
Jania. Therafter, I supplied the copy of Death Certificate to
my counsel and filed the application in the Court. My
litigation with the respondent is going on since 2004. My
family is not in speaking and visiting terms with the
respondent family. We do not have any social relation with
each other. I was not aware about the factum of the death
of respondent (Jania) until the same fact was disclosed to
me by my counsel.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Pranjal Munjal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
There are different inhabitation of different
families at some distances in our village. It is incorrect
that respondent (Jania) use to reside within our inhabitation
area. Self stated that he use to reside at about 500 meters
away from the place, where we are residing. It is incorrect
CMP(M) No. 577 of 2023 in RSA No. 350 of 2011
that after the two days of the death of Jania, I visited the
house of Jania with Shri Devender Fista. It is incorrect that
the path which leads to cremation ground passes infront of
my house. It is incorrect that I was well aware about the
factum of the death of Jania (respondent), when I visited the
house of Jania after his death. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 577 of 2023 in RSA No. 350 of 2011
Statement of Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant.
Without oath
22.11.2023
Stated that I give up Shri Hardyal Singh being
repitative in nature and close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 577 of 2023 in RSA No. 350 of 2011
22.11.2023
Present: Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for the
proposed LRs.
Statement of Shri Kushal Singh and Shri
Krishan Singh, are recorcded as AW/1 and AW/2,
respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant vide his
separate statement has given up the other witnesses
mentioned in the list of witnesses being repatative in nature
and close the evidence on behalf of the applicant.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant seeks
time for taking the steps for RWs. Let the steps be taken
within fifteen days, thereafter, the process be issued for
service of RWs returnable for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd November, 2023
(Pritam)
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSA No. 4272 of 2013
AW4 Statement of Shri Hira Lal S/o Shri Tej Ram
aged about 70 years R/o of Village & P.O.
Dughilag, Tehsil and District Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh.
On oath
23.11.2023
Stated that the land in dispute belongs to me
and my brothers. My dispute pertaining to the land in lis is
with LRs of Tej Ram. We had filed a Civil Suit against
Shri Tej Ram in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
L&S at Kullu, which was decreed in our favour.
Thereafter, the other party filed an appeal before the Court
of District Judge Kullu, which was also dismissed.
Thereafter, Tej Ram filed the Second appeal in the High
Court, which is pending adjudication. The High Court
initially granted the stay order in the present appeal vide
order dated 08.11.2013, which was subsequently confirmed
on 26.12.2013. In order dated 08.11.2013, the the High
Court directed parties to the lis to maintain status quo qua
nature and possession of the suit land. Inspite of the stay
order from the High Court Tej Ram got the disputed land
demarcated from the Revenue department and sought the
permission from the Forest Department for cutting the trees.
Thereafter, I filed an application CMP No. 16333 of 2014,
which was disposed of as infructuous on 24.04.2015 as
contemnor had died. I had also filed another application for
the stay before the High Court, which was registered as
CMP No. 16334 of 2014. In the reply to the application
CMP No. 16333 of 2014, the contemnor in his reply had
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
also tendered the apology. After the death of Tej Ram his
LRs handed over the possession of the suit property to M/s
Gour Hydro Power Project, Private Limited. Inspite of our
resistence not to hand over the possession to the Power
Project, they handed over the possession to Gour Hydro
Power Project. Thereafter, we issued notice Ex. AW1/A to
Gour Hydro Power Project, since they had constructed the
road on the suit land and the debris were thrown in the
adjoining land, which belongs to us. The Power Project had
started to construct the road in the suit land on 17.09.2016.
Therafter, I again filed the present application under order
39 Rule 2-A CPC for disobeying the orders of the Court by
the respondents. In the said application the High Court
appointed one Local Commissioner, namely Smt. Aruna
Chauhan, Advocate. Local Comissioner visited the spot
and thereafter filed her report Ex. AW2/A, in the Court.
The Power Project did not stop the work nor handed over
the possession to us. The Power Project had started the
work on account of the possession given by the LRs of Tej
Ram, who are stranger to the suit property. The
respondents have intentionally and delebrately disobeyed
the orders of Hon’ble Court.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, for
the non-applicants/appellants.
I have filed the suit in Kullu Court for
declaration. It is correct that I have not filed any
ddocument with any application from which it could be
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
inferred that the LRs of Tej Ram had handed over the
possession to Gour Power Project. It is correct that in the
year 2010 and 2012, Tej Ram had executed the lease deeds
of the said land in favour Osaka Hydro Power Project. It is
correct that thereafter neither Tej Ram nor his LRs leased
the said land in favour of any person or Project. It is
incorrect that the LRs of Tej Ram are residing about 25
Kms. away from the land in dispute. Self stated that they
are residing 4-5 Kms. away. It is correct that the dumping
in the land in dispute has not been done by LRs of Tej Ram.
Self stated that the dumping has been done by the Power
Project in connivance with LRs of Tej Ram. It is incorrect
that there was orchard on the disputed land which was
washed out later on due to floods. It is incorrect that the
road was already in existence on the disputed land. Self
stated that land in disputed was in the shape of fields. In
the revenue record the disputed land has been recorded as
fields. I have seen the report filed by the Local
Commissioner. It is incorrect that the Local Commissioner
has pointed out that there is no violation on the part of Tej
Ram. It is incorrect that there is no role of LRs of Tej Ram
in any construction on the disputed land. It is incorrect that
neither Tej Ram nor his Lrs have violated the order of the
Court. It is incorrect that I am deposing false.
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
xxx xxx xxx Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for
the respondents No. 4 (Sarwari Power Project).
Opportunity given. Nil.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
Statement of Ms. Kusum Chaudhary,
Advocate for the applicants.
Without oath
23.11.2023
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of
applicants since the list of witnesses have exhausted.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
23.11.2023
Present: Shri Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms.
Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, vice Mr.
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for the non-
applicants/appellants.
Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for respondent
No.4, (Sarwari Power Project).
Statement of Shri Hira Lal is recorded as AW4.
Learned counsel for the applicants vide her separate
statement has closed the evidence on behalf of the
applicants.
Learned vice Counsel for the non-applicants
seeks time for taking the steps for RWs. Let the steps be
taken within fifteen days, thereafter, the process be issued
for service of RWs returnable for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 891 of 2022 in RSA 46 of 2017
24.11.2023
Present: Shri G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks some
more time for producing the witnesses on behalf of the
applicants.
Let the witnesses be produced on self
responsibility on the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th November, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 79 of 2016
30.11.2023
Present: Shri Vikas Deep, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocate, vice Mr.
Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the defendant.
As per previous order dated 13.10.2023, the
plaintiff was required to be produced on self responsibility
for adducing his evidence.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
due to some urgency, the plaintiff could not come to the
Court for adducing his evidence. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff seeks more time for producing the plaintiff on self
responsibility.
Let the plaintiff be produced on self
responsibility on the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
30th November, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014
01.12.2023
Present: Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Shri. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate, vice H.S.
Upadhaya, Advocate, for the for the
defendant.
The case was listed for plaintiff’s evidence and
the plaintiff is to be produced on self responsibility.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that due to critical
situation of mother-in-law of Shri Vikas Jain (PW3), whose
cross examination has been deferred by the Court on
04.10.2019, he is unable to come to the Court for adducing
his evidence and sought adjournment for today.
Keeping in view of the reasons submitted by
the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the matter is adjourned
for today. Let PW3 (Vikas Jain) be produced on the next
date of hearing on self responsibility for his cross
examination for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st December, 2023
(Pritam)
Statement of Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma,
the then Court Master, High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171 001.
Stated that in the year 2019, I was posted as
Court Master with Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.
During that relevant time, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna
Rewal Dua, used to sit in Division Bench with Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Retd.). The said case
was listed before the aforesaid Division Bench and the
judgment in the said matter was delivered on the same day,
therefore, there is no question of retaining the record.
Moreover, on that day after hearing the arguments, the
matter was assigned to Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal
Dua, for dictating the judgment. The record pertaining to
that case never handed over to me, since the judgment was
delivered on the same day and the same may be handed
over to the concerned person who has typed the judgment.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 a/w Civil Suit No. 108 of 2021
04.12.2023
Present: Mr. Neeraj Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Maan
Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff in Civil
Suit No. 95 of 2020 and defendant/counter
claimant in Civil Suit No. 108 of 2021.
Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr.
Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the
defendant in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 and
for the plaintiff/counter claimant in Civil Suit
No. 108 of 2021
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff in Civil
Suit No. 95 of 2020, submits that no witness is present
today as they have not been informed since the wife of the
original counsel is admitted in the hospital. Learned vice
counsel seeks time for producing the plaintiff witnesses on
the next date of hearing on self responsibility.
Learned vice counsel for the defendant/counter
claimant has not objection to the prayer made by learned
vice counsel for the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for today.
Let the the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020, be
produced on self responsibility on the next date of hearing
to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th December, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS No. 33 of 2018
05.12.2023
Present: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate, vice Mr. M.S.
Katoch, Advoccate for defendants No. 1 and
2.
Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate, for defendant
No.3.
As per the office report, summons issued to PW
mentioned at Serial No. 1 in the list of witnesses is still
awaited. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits
that the plaintiff is not available due to his illness. Learned
counsel submits that he will produce the plaintiff on the
next date of hearing on self responsibility.
Accordingly, let the plaintiff be produced on
self responsibility and PW mentioned at Serial No.1 be
again summoned for adducing their evidence for the date to
be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CWP No. 1715 of 2018
Statement of Balwinder Singh, Co-ordinator-HR FMABIL,
Plot No.5, Sector-II, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal
Pradesh.
Stated that I have been duly authorized by the
company vide letter dated 25th July, 2022 and Board of
Director Resolution dated 8th December, 2015, to make
statement on behalf of the Company. I am placing on record
the letter dated 25.07.2022 and copy of the resolution of
Board of Director dated 08.12.2015 (original seen and
returned).
The Company has entered into compromise in the
present CWP No. 1715 of 2018 and has agreed to pay an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) as full and final
settlement of service benefits including gratuity to the LRs of
Shri Ram Surat Yadav, who was working with our company.
In lieu of the settlement arrived at with the LRs of Shri Ram
Surat Yadav, the Company is ready to hand over a cheque
No.012251, dated 04.12.2023, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rs. Five lacs only) drawn in HDFC Bank, Kalka Haryana in
favour of Shri Sarvesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Surat
Yadav, who has been duly authorized by Smt. Dulari Devi,
Shri Manish Kumar Yadav and Ms. Sarla Yadav. I am also
placing on record the copy of the settlement (the same has
been taken on record).
In view of the full and final amicable settlement,
the case may be disposed of.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
5th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CWP No. 1715 of 2018
Statement of Sarvesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ram Surat
Yadav, R/o village Puraghannee, P.O. Ambari, Tehsil
Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, U.P.
Stated that I have been duly authorized by my
mother, brother and sister to enter into compromise with the
Company. They have authorized me to make the statement
and enter into the compromise and receive the money on
my and their behalf vide Special Power of Attorney dated
30.11.2023 (which is taken on record). The Company has
offered an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) as
full and final settlement, which is aggreable to me and my
mother, brother and sister.
In view of the compromise entered between
myself, mother, brother and sister as well as Company, the
case may be disposed of accordingly. I am making the
above said statement volunternly and without any undue
influence and coercion. The settlement dated 04.12.2023,
bears my signature.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
5th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CWP No. 1715 of 2018
05.12.2023
Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate, for the
respondents.
As per mention memo received from the
Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the undersigned was
directed to record the statements. In compliance of the
aforesaid direction of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, statement
of Shri Balwinder Singh (Petitioner) and Shri Sarvesh
Kumar (Special Power of Attorney respondent), are
recorded.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Note: Court Master of the Hon’ble Court is requested to –
apprise the Hon’ble Court with respect to recording of
statements at the time of taking up of the matter.
CMP(M) No. 478 & 479 of 2023
06.12.2023
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent.
As per office report, steps i.e., list of witnesses,
road and diet money etc., has not been taken by the
applicant till date. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks
some time for taking the steps.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen days,
thereafter the process be issued for the service of AWs
returnable for 10.01.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2015
Statement of ASI Rakesh Kumar, Police
Station Dhalli, Shimla-12, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
06.12.2023
Stated that the SHO Police Station Dhalli,
Shimla, H.P., handed over me proclamation notice for
affixing the same at some conspicuous place of
Village Kach-ka-Para, P.O. Arangi, Police Station
Ghagra, Tehsil and District Gumla Jharkhand, in
which the accused Suresh Urao used to reside. In
compliance to that I affixed the copy of proclamation
on 05.10.2023, at the residence of the accused in the
presence of witnesses (parents of the accused). The
said proclamation was read over to the general public
present at that time. I on the same day, i.e. on
05.10.2023, also affixed the second copy of
proclamation notice at conspicious place (Chuoraha)
of the Village Kach-ka-Para in the presence of the
witnesses and the same was read over to the general
public present there at that time. Further, on
04.11.2023, I also affixed the copy of the
proclamation on the notice Board of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in the presence of the witnesses.
The signatures of the witnesses were also obtained by
me on the back side of the proclamation notice. After
affixation of proclamation notices at the respective
Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2015
places, I submitted the compliance report to SHO,
Police Station Dhalli, Shimla.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
6th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 10 of 2021
06.12.2023
Present: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate, for the defendants.
Shri Kitab Singh and Shri Neelam Kumar,
witnesses of the defendants are present today. Learned
counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants want
to place on record certain document, which could not be
inadvertently filed with the written statement. Learned
counsel for the defendants seeks time to move the
appropriate application for placing on record the documents.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the
prayer of the defendants.
In the interest of justice one opportunity is
granted to the defendants for doing the needful. Let the
case be listed before the Hon’ble Court after filing the
appropriate application, if any, by the defendants.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2015
06.12.2023
Present: Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General
for the appellant-State.
None for the respondents.
In compliance to the order dated 22.11.2023,
statement of ASI Rakesh Kumar, Police Station Dhalli,
Shimla, is recorded who has affixed the proclamation
notice.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1328 of 2022
07.12.2023
Present: Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for the
respondent.
As per office report, the list of witnesses has
been filed on 04.12.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the appellant has to come from Kinnaur
but due to some personal work, he could not come to the
Court today. Learned counsel further submits that he will
produce the witnesses (AWs) as mentioned in the list of
witnesses on self responsibility on the next date of hearing.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 669 of 2023
07.12.2023
Present: Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General
for the applicants.
None for the respondents.
CMP(M) No. 669 of 2023
As per office report, the AWs in the present
CMP(M) has been duly served and the date of evidence on
behalf of the applicant has been fixed for 20.12.2023.
CMP(M) No. 668, 670, 672 & 673 of 2023
As per office report, in these connected matters,
the steps have not been taken by the applicants. Learned
Deputy Advocate General has submitted that she will take
the steps within three days and prayed that these matters be
also listed for AWs alongwith CMP(M) No. 669 of 2023,
since almost the same witnesses are required to be
examined in all the matters.
Accordingly, let the steps be taken within three
days, thereafter, the process be issued for service of AWs
returnable for 20.12.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2021
11.12.2023
Present: Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
In compliance to the order dated 04.12.2023, of
the Hon’ble Court, statement of LC Priyanka Sharma 316,
is recorded, who has affixed the proclamation.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2021
Statement of Ms. Priyanka Sharma, LC 316,
PP Junga, Police Station Dhalli, Shimla-12,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
11.12.2023
Stated that the SHO Police Station Dhalli,
Shimla, H.P., handed over me proclamation notice for
affixing the same at some conspicuous place of
Village Pendali, Gram Panchayat Bharech, P.O.
Junga, Tehsil and District Shimla, in which the
accused Sandeep S/o Shri Jeet Bahadur, used to reside.
In compliance to that I affixed the copy of
proclamation on 02.08.2023, at the Notice Board of
Tehsil Junga, in the presence of witnesses Shri
Visheshwar Sharma, (Reader of the Naib Tehsildar).
On the same day, I also affixed the proclamation
notice at the Notice Board of Gram Panchayat
Bharech, in the presence of Pardhan Shri Madan
Mohan Thakur and the same was read over to the
general public present there at that time. On
03.08.2023, I also affixed the copy of proclamation
notice at the Notice Board of the office of District and
Sessions Judge Court, Shimla, in the presence of Shri
Prem Dogra (Naib Court of the said Court). The
signatures of the witnesses were also obtained by me
on the back side of the proclamation notice. After
affixation of proclamation notices at the respective
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2021
places, I submitted the compliance report to SHO,
Police Station Dhalli, Shimla.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 2831 of 2021 in RSa No. 511 of 2016
11.12.2023
Present: None for the parties.
Neither any counsel nor any witness is present.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for remaining
AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 8 of 2021
PW-12 Statement of Shri Saurabh Kumar, S/o Late
Shri Santosh Kumar aged about 37 years,
presently working as Superintendent (Legal) in
the office of Principal Commissioner CGST,
Chotta Shimla-171 002, H.P.
On Oath
12.12.2023
Stated that I am presently working as
Superintendent (Legal) in the office of Principal
Comissioner CGST, Chotta Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. I
have brought the summoned record. The lease agreement
dated 23.03.2018 Ex.PW12/A (six leaves), which is true
and correct as per the original retained by our office,
except the original above said lease deed I have not
brought any other record. The original file of our office
has been sent to CPWD office for renewal of the lease-
cum-license agreement. Mark P pertains to the noting of
our official file, which is not maintained in our office
generally in the physical form.
At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submits that since this witness has not brought the entire
original record, therefore, the witness present today may
be deferred. Accordingly, the witness is deferred for
today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
12th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 8 of 2021
PW-13 Statement of Shri Jagdish Gupta, S/o Late
Shri T.R. Gupta aged about 57 years,
presently working as Assistant Registrar,
H.P,. State Information Commission,
Keonthal Complex, Khalini, Shimla- 171
002, H.P.
On Oath
12.12.2023
Stated that I have not brought the entire
original summoned record as the same has been sent to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh for approval, budget
and permission for acquiring the accommodation.
At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submits that since this witness has not brought the entire
original record, therefore, the witness present today may
be deferred. Accordingly, the witness is deferred for
today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
12th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 8 of 2021
12.12.2023
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Shri
Ranvir Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for defendants No. 1
and 2
None for defendant No.3.
Shri Saurabh, Superintendent (Legal) from the
office of CGST, Chotta Shimla, (PW-12), Shri Jagdish Gupta,
Assistant Registrar (PW-13), from the office of H.P. State
Information Commission, Shri B.C. Sharma, are present. The
examination of Shri Saurabh and Shri Jagdish Gupta are deferred
today since these witnesses have not brought the entire original
record. Shri B.C. Sharma, (Expert) is also present today but
learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2, showed his inability
to cross examine to this witness since the report prepeared by the
Shri B.C. Sharma (Expert) has been handed over to him
yesterday only. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has no
objection qua the non-examination of Shri B.C. Sharma, today.
As per the office report the witness shown in the
list of witness at Sl. No. 1 is also not present. The diet money to
Shri B.C. Sharma has been paid by the plaintiff in cash today.
Let the PWs mentioned in the list of witnesses
dated 12.10.2023, be again summoned for the date to be fixed by
the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on taking fresh steps within
fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
13.12.2023
Present: Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Dhananjay
Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the defendant.
Let the case be listed on 01.03.2024 for evidence
of the plaintiff/authorized person of the plaintiff/Board. Steps
for summoning the plaintiff/authorized representative of the
plaintiff be taken within fifteen days. Rest of the plaintiff
witnesses will be summoned subsequently after the examination
of the plaintiff/authorized representative of the Board.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 28 of 2014
13.12.2023
Present: Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for the
defendants.
As per office report, two witnesses mentioned in
the list of witnesses of the defendants are duly served. Shri
Ashwini Kumar, Patwari, Patwar Circle Bhangrotu, Tehsil Balh,
District Mandi, H.P., and Shri Thakur Dass, Patwari, Patwar
Circle Bagla, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. are present.
Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted
that these witnesses have not brought any record for adducing
their evidence. However, the perusal of the list of the witnesses
as well as PF filed on behalf of the defendants depicts that no
documents have been mentioned, which are required to be
brought/proved by these witnesses.
Learned Deputy Advocate General seeks for
adjournment today in order to verify what evidence is to be led
by the State by examining these witnesses.
Accordingly, on the request of learned Deputy
Advocate General the matter is adjourned for today. The
witnesses present today are discharged. Let fresh steps be taken
within fifteen days. Thereafter the process be issued for the
service of the witnesses of the defendants again for the date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CWP No. 2569 of 2022
13.12.2023
Present: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, for the respondents.
In compliance to the order dated 06.12.2023, the
electronic device i.e., one Pen Drive was taken out from the
envelop, marked as Annexure-P-3 in the presence of learned
counsel for the parties. The video clippings of driving test of the
person having Roll No. 30527, was viewed in the presence of
learned counsel for the parties. As per the Video Clipping taken
from CAM 2, the driver having Roll No. 30527, who was
driving the vehicle at 11:11:29 hours has appeared to touch the
front wheal with white line and at 11:12:05 hours as well as
11:12:21 to 11.12.23 hours, the rear wheel of the vehicle has
also appeared to have been touched with the white line.
Accordingly, in compliance to the orders of the
Hon’ble Court, report is submitted. After viewing the clipping
the Electronic Device i.e. Pen Drive is put inside the same
envelop marked as Annexure P-3.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Note: Court Master is requested to apprise the above said report
to the Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the matter.
Statement of Shri Yashwant Singh Chauhan,
Private Secretary, High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, Shimla-171 001.
Stated that in the year 2019, I was posted as
Private Secretary with Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal
Dua. At that time, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,
used to sit in Division Bench with Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Retd.). On 30.10.2019, the
judgment in CWP No. 2521 of 2019 was dictated to me by
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, and was typed by
me. After typing the same, I handed over the draft of the
judgment as well as the case file to the Hon’ble Judge
through Secretary (Shri Gopal Kaushal) to the Hon’ble
Judge. However, I had not retained any record in this case,
since the case has been dictated on the same day by the
Hon’ble Judge.
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
13th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Submitted that in compliance of order dated
04.12.2023, of Worthy Registrar General, Shri Yashwant
Singh Chauhan, Private Secretary of this Registry, who has
typed the judgment dictated by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna
Rewal Dua, J., recorded his statement today i.e. 13.12.2023.
Accordingly, the matter is submitted after recording the
statement, which is placed on the file.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
13.12.2023
Worthy Registrar General
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2009
DW-5 Statement of Shri Mast Ram S/o Shri Sita
Ram aged about 63 years, presently working as
Company Secretary in Practice, H. No. 3443/2,
Sector-45-D, Chandigarh.
On Oath
14.12.2023
Stated that I am practicing as Company
Secretary since 1997 in the name and style of
MRCHECHI and Associates, Company Secretary. Shri
Parveen Kumar, present Director of the Company of M/s
Radiant Cement Company came in my contact in the year
2009, when he was introduced to me by Mr. Vijay Singla,
the then Director of M/s Radiant Cement Company. I was
consultant of the Radiant Cement Company when Shri
Vijay Singla was Director of the said company. When the
company was taken over by Shri Parveen Kumar and
others I handed over the certified copy of minutes of the
meeting dated 05.06.2009, 06.06.2009 and 12.06.2009.
On the certified copies of the minutes of the meeting I
appended my signature before handing over the same to
Shri Parveen Kumar. The copies of the above said
minutes of the meeting are Ex.DW5/A, DW5/B and
DW5/C, respectively. I have certified the above said
minutes of the meeting from the original minutes of the
company. The minutes of the meeting were duly signed
by the then Chairman Shri Vijay Singla, which is in red
circle A of Ex. DW5/A. The minutes of the meeting duly
signed by the Chairman Shri Parveen Kumar is in red
circle B of Ex. DW5/B and in red circle C of Ex. DW5/C.
I am conversant with the signatures of Shri Vijay Singla
and Shri Parveen Kumar.
xxx xxx Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal,
Advocate, for defendant No.1.
Opportunity given-Nil.
xxx xxx Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate for
plaintiff.
It is correct that there is a reference of Vijay
Bhandari in the minutes of the meeting Ex. DW5/A to
DW5/C. Self stated that by virtue of these minutes the
previous acts of the previous management has been
rectified and adopted by the new management. I am not
aware about the transactions entered into the previous
management of the company with Shri Vijay Bhandari,
though in the minutes produced by me today, there is a
reference of Shri Vijay Bhandari and some transactions
between Vijay Bhandari and the previous management. It
is correct that the responsibility of that transaction was
taken by the new management. Self stated that the
minutes of the meeting are prepared by the company and I
have only certified the minutes of the meeting being
consultant of the company. It is correct that I use to give
my professional services and expertise to Shri Vijay
Singla the then Director of the company. As of date I am
not working with Shri Vijay Singla.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2009
Statement of Shri Khem Raj, Advocate,
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
Without Oath
14.12.2023
Stated that I give up Managing Director of M/s
Radiant Cement Company, mentioned at Serial No.1, in
the list witnesses because the documents sought to be
proved by this witness has already been exhibited and
proved not opposed by the opposing counsel.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2009
14.12.2023
Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for
defendant No.1.
Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate, for defendant No.2.
Statement of Shri Mast Ram, is recorded as DW-5
today. The remaining witnesses on behalf of defendant No.2, be
produced on the next date of hearing on self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date for DWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 80 of 2022
14.12.2023
Present: Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for the
petitioner.
Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent.
As per office report, Bank Guarantee for release of
50% amount deposited in the Registry has been filed on behalf
of the applicant/respondent on 23.09.2023, and verification letter
of the Bank Guarantee No. 87000ILG000823, amounting to
Rs.59,72,000/-, has been received from Punjab National Bank,
Bachat Bhawan, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.
As per the confirmation letter dated 23.11.2023,
the Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs.59,72,000/- has been
issued on 22.09.2023 and the same is valid till 21.09.2024 and
the claim validity period is 21.10.2024. In pursuance of the
confirmation letter received from the Punjab National Bank,
Bachat Bhawan, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., the above
said Bank Guarantee filed by the applicant/respondent is
accepted.
Let the matter be further processed in compliance
of the order of Hon’ble Court dated 15.09.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP No. 967 of 2023 in RSA No. RSAST No. 21332 of 2023
15.12.2023
Present: – None for the applicant.
Mr. Daleep Chand, Advocate, vice counsel
for the respondents.
.
As per the office report, rejoinder to the reply to
CMP (M) No. 967 of 2023, is still awaited and steps i.e. PF,
Road and Diet Money and List of Witnesses have not been
filed by the applicant yet.
Let the steps be taken by the applicant within fifteen
days, thereafter, the process be issued for the service of the
witnesses (AWs) for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Statement of Shri Gopal Kaushal, Secretary,
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171
001.
Stated that I am working as Secretary with
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., since 201. I do
not remember about this particular case nor I am aware that
any record pertaining to this case was handed over to me.
The draft judgment might have been given to me by Shri
Yashwant Singh, Private Secretary to me which might have
been handed over by me to the Hon’ble Judge as per the
general practice. Further, no record pertaining to this case
nor of any case is/was being handed over to the Secretary
by the Private Secretaries/ Judgment Writers/
Stenographers, when the draft judgment is handed over to
the Secretary
RO & AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
AW-1 Statement of Shri Bhup Singh S/o Shri
Chimna Ram aged about 66 R/o of Village
House No. 352 of 11, Muhalla Thanera (Tarna,
Tehsil and District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
18.12.2023
Stated that I am residing in the above stated
address since last 40 years. However, I have purchased the
land on which I have built the house have been purchased
by me in the year 1989 from Shri Janku Ram. At the time
of purchasing the land Shri Janku Ram informed me that
the path to my land leads from the Govt. land having
Khasra No. 1570, which is in front of my land. I came to
know about the decision of the Civil Suit No. 42 of 2007,
filed by Shri Janku against the State of Himachal Pradesh
in February 2019. When the LRs of the Janku started to
restrain the path which leads to my house. The said path
also leads to other part of the Mohalla where 15.20 houses
are situated. When the LRs of Janku started to restrain the
above said path then I inquired from them about the cause
of restraining the path then they informed that the land in
dispute is owned by them and we do not have any right on
that land. Thereafter, I approach the revenue and other
authorities for restraining the LRs of Janku but nothing
had happened. Thereafter, I inquired about the litigation
as well as how the LRs of Janku have become the owner
of the Govt. land from where our path leads to our houses.
On 18.03.2019, I came to Shimla and consulted my
Advocate at Shimla, who advised us to obtain the certified
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
copies of the Lower Courts. On 18.04.2019 I again
visited our Advocate at Shimla and handed over the
certified copies of the judgments of the Lower Courts.
Thereafter, we again came to Shimla on 22.04.2019, on
which date we signed the appeal and accompanied
applications. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed by
our Advocate on 23.04.2019. Even in the year 2016, the
Municipal Committee, Mandi, also laid tiles on the path
which leads to our houses and at that time no objection
was raised by any party. Any delay in filing the appeal is
neither intentional nor willful but due to the
aforementioned reason as we were not made party by Shri
Janku in the Civil Suit or the First Appellate Court.
xxx xxx Mr. H.S. Rana Advocate, for non-
applicant-respondent.
There is no reference in the sale deed of my
land, however, the seller (Janku) had verbally told me
about the path which leads to our houses from Govt. land.
I was not aware in the year 2016 that LRs of the Janku had
become the owner of the said land. There is no other path,
which leads to our houses except the present one. It is
incorrect that other path also leads to our house from other
directions. It is incorrect that I was well aware about the
civil litigation between Janku and the State of Himachal
Pradesh since 2007. It is incorrect that I was also aware
about the judgments of both the Lower Courts. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false and just to harass the
non-applicant-respondent I have filed the present appeal.
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
It is incorrect that I do not have any right title or interest
on the said land. It is incorrect that there exists no path on
the said land.
xxx xxx Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate
General, for non-applicant/ respondents No.
2 and 3.
Opportunity given-Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
AW-2 Statement of Shri Bansi Lal S/o Late Shri Nek
Ram R/o of 228 of 2011 Tarna Road, Muhalla
Thanera District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
18.12.2023
Stated that I remained Councilor (Parshd) of
Municipal Committee, Mandi in the year 2016. The
parties to the present lis are well known to me since both
are resident of my ward. I know the land in dispute
between the parties and when in the year 2016 the tiles
were laid on the path at Khasra No. 1570, by Municipal
Committee then none of the parties raised any objection
from laying the tiles on the path. I have seen the said path
since my birth and as of date I am 56 years old. I was not
aware about any civil litigation between Janku and the
State of Himachal Pradesh. I came to know about the
ownership of the LRs of Janku in the year 2019, when
they started to remove the tiles and raise their plot on the
disputed land. The photographs Mark A-1 to A-8 are of
the same path which leads to the house of the present
applicant and other residents of the area.
xxx xxx Mr. H.S. Rana Advocate, for non-
applicant-respondent.
It is correct that one other Kachha path leads to
the houses of the present applicant from Tarna Mandir
side, which is about two Kms. in length. However, the
present path in dispute is hardly 15 meters in length.
These days the applicants are coming from the path which
is coming from Tarna Mandir side through private
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
property of one Shri Inder Singh Diwan. I was not aware
about the ownership of the LRs of Janku in the year 2016,
when the Municipal Committee led the tile on the said
path. I do not inquire before laying the tiles about the
ownership of the said land in dispute. It is incorrect that
there is no right or title of the applicants in the disputed
land. It is incorrect that the above said photographs are
not of the same path in dispute. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false under the influence of the present applicant
since they belong to my ward.
xxx xxx Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy
Advocate General, for non-applicant/
respondents No. 2 and 3.
Opportunity given-Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
Statement of Ms. Kusum Chaudhary,
Advocate, for the applicants.
Without Oath
18.12.2023
Stated that I give up AW Shri Bhupender being
repetitive in nature and close the evidence on behalf of the
applicants.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
Statement of Shri H.S. Rana, Advocate, for the
non-applicant-respondent No.1.
Without Oath
18.12.2023
Stated that I do not want to lead any evidence
on behalf of respondent No.1.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
Statement of Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy
Advocate General for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Without Oath
18.12.2023
Stated that the State do not want to lead any
evidence on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
18th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M)ST No. 7519 of 2019 in RSA
18.12.2023
Present: – Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
Ms. Ranjna Patiyal, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No. 2 and 3.
.
Statements of Shri Bhup Singh and Shri Bansi Lal
are recorded as AW-1 and Aw2, respectively. Learned counsel
for the applicant has closed the evidence on behalf of the
applicant vide her separate statement. Learned counsel for the
respondents vide their separate statement has stated that they do
not want to lead any evidence in defense.
Since the evidence on behalf of the parties is
complete, let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019
19.12.2023
Present: – Ms. Ritu Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Neel
Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for the defendant.
As per office report, steps for summoning the
plaintiff witnesses have not been taken till date. Two
opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiff for
taking steps for PWs but no steps have been taken till date.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 120 of 2019
19.12.2023
Present: – Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for
defendants No. 1,2 and 7.
Mr. Anil Kashyap, Advocate, vice counsel for
defendant No.3.
Mr. Kuldeep, Advocate, vice counsel for
defendant No.4.
Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocate, vice counsel for
defendants No. 5 and 6.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
the plaintiff is not present today as he has gone to Uttrakhand due
to his professional engagements. However, he will produce the
plaintiff for his examination on 26.12.2023, on self responsibility.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that as per the
list of witnesses already submitted the other witnesses are
required to be summoned and it is not possible for the plaintiff to
bring them for adducing their evidence on self responsibility.
Steps for summoning the witnesses have already been taken for
other witnesses.
Since as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court, the
PWs are required to be examined on day-to-day basis but for
summoning of the witnesses some time is required. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that he will move an
appropriate application for doing the needful. Firstly, let the case
be listed for recording statement of the plaintiff on 26.12.2023.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 118 of 2019
19.12.2023
Present: – Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for the defendants.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Plaintiff No.1, is present today.
Learned counsel for the defendants seeks adjournment for today
since he wants to confront certain documents which are not
available with him today and he has to consult his client for that
purpose.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has objected the
request of adjournment on behalf of the defendants. Learned
counsel for the defendants has submitted that he will compensate
and pay the expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- to plaintiff No.1,
who has come to the Court today, on the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for today. Let
the case be listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for
fixing the next date of hearing. It is made clear that no
adjournment shall be given on the next date of hearing.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 1244 of 2022 in RSA No. 18567 of 2022
26.12.2023
Present: – Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate, vice Mr.
Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. Bharat Thakur and Mr. Harsh Kalta,
Advocates for the respondents No. 1,2 and
4 to 6.
Name of non-applicant No.3 stands already
deleted from the array of parties.
Non-applicant No.7 already ex-parte.
.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant seeks one
more opportunity for producing the applicant witnesses on
self responsibility. Two opportunities have already been
granted to the applicant for doing the needful but no witness
has been produced by the applicant.
Accordingly, the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th November, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 891 of 2022 in RSA 46 of 2017
26.11.2023
Present: Shri Manjeet Singh, Advocate vice Shri G.R.
Palsra, Advocate, for the applicants.
Shri O.P. Chauhan and Ms. Shikha Chauhan,
Advocates, for the respondents.
Learned vice counsel for the applicants seeks
one more opportunity for producing the AWs. The perusal
of the case file shows that nine opportunities have already
been granted for taking the steps for AWs or for producing
the AWs on self responsibility. As per the learned vice
counsel for the applicants no witness is present today.
Since nine opportunities have already been
granted for AWs, therefore, let the matter be listed before
the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Note: Court Master is requested to apprise the above said order
to the Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the matter.
Civil Suit No. 120 of 2012
26.12.2023
Present: – Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for
defendants 1, 2 and 7.
Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for defendant
No.3.
None for defendant No.4.
Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for defendants
No. 5 and 6.
Plaintiff Shri Rohit Sood is present today.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants No. 1, 2 and 7
have jointly submitted that there are chances of amicable
settlement and negotiation between the parties are going on.
Learned counsel further submits that no fruitful purpose will be
served by examining the witnesses at this stage since there are
positive signs of amicable settlement between the parties.
Learned counsel has submitted that the matter may be again
listed before the Hon’ble Court so that the appropriate orders
may be passed by the Hon’ble Court keeping in view the
ongoing negotiation between the parties.
On the joint request of the learned counsels let the
matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court at the earliest for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2020
27.12.2023
Present: Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for the
appellant.
Ms. Rekha Bansal, Advocate, vice Mr. K.B.
Khajuria, Advocate for the respondents.
As per the order of Hon’ble Court dated
20.12.2023, the serving officer was directed to appear
before the undersigned today i.e. on 27.12.2023, to get
his statement recorded in respect of proclamation
proceedings conducted by him. The statement of the
serving officer namely HC Subhash Chander 842, Police
Station Urban Estate Rohtak is recorded.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before
the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2023
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2020
Statement of HC Subhash Chander 842, Police
Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, Haryana
On Oath
27.12.2023
Stated that on 07.11.2023, the MHC, Police
Post Urban Estate Rohtak, Haryana, handed over me
proclamation notice for affixing the same at some
conspicuous place of Village Bohar, Ward No.9,
Nagar Nigam Bohar Rohtak, near Old State Bank,
District Rohtak, Haryana, in which Jai Pal used to
reside. In compliance to that I affixed the copy of
proclamation notice outside house of the Jai Pal in the
presence of parents of Jai Pal I also clicked the
photographs to that effect which has been annexed
with my report. On the same day, i.e. on 07.11.2023,
the second copy of proclamation notice was affixed at
outside the residence of Councilor Municipal
Committee, Bohar, District Rohtak in the presence of
Councillor Jai Bhagwan. The proclamation notice
was read over to the general public present there at
that time while affixing the proclamation notice
outside the house of the accused (Jai Pal) as well as
Councillor Jai Bhagwan. I also obtained the details
regarding immovable property of the accused (Jai Pal)
from Municipal Corporation Rohtak and the Bank
details of the accused from SBI Bohar. I also obtained
the details regarding ownership of any motor vehicle
Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2020
of accused Jai Pal from RAMV Rohtak but as per the
above said authorities nothing was found in the
ownership of Jai Pal. The copies of the report taken
from the above said authorities are annexed with my
report. I could not obtain the signature of any of the
witnesses while affixing the proclamation as nobody
come forward to become the witness. On the same
day i.e. 07.11.2023, I also affix the copy of the
proclamation notice on the Notice Board of Police
Station Urban Estate Rohtak. Thereafter, I submitted
my report to MHC Police Station Urban Estate
Rohtak, Haryana.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023in RSA No. 196 of 2021
AW-1 Statement of Shri Manohar Lal S/o Shri Piar
Chand aged 62 years R/o Tehsil Baijnath,
District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
27.12.2023
Stated that I have studied upto 5th standard.
The land in dispute is adjacent to Shiv Mandi Baijnath. I
do not remember the Khasra and Khatauni numbers of the
land in dispute. Self stated that I have given all the
revenue papers pertaining to the land in dispute to my
Advocate. The respondent-State had filed eviction
proceedings against me. I had filed a Civil Suit in Baijnath
Court in the year 2012. The Civil Court Baijnath partly
decreed my suit. Thereafter, State filed an appeal before
the appellate Court and the appellate Court set aside the
judgment of the trial Court. Thereafter, I filed the present
appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High
Court vide order dated 11.11.2021, directed the parties to
maintain status quo. My counsel send me the copy of the
said order which was produced by me before the Mandir
Committee Shiv Temple Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.
But they did not pay any heed to the orders passed by the
Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, I again contacted my
Advocate at Shimla and my Advocate sent a notice to
District Collector and Mandi Committee, Shiv Temple
Baijnath to take remedial measures otherwise I will have
to take the recourse under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC. The
copy of the Legal Notice is Ex. AW1/A, which has been
issued by my counsel on my instruction. Inspite of the
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023in RSA No. 196 of 2021
Legal Notice the respondents did not stop and use to
conduct Langar, Mela by putting tents and by raising
temporary structures on the disputed land. I also informed
about the illegal activities of the respondents to the police
authority by making a written complaint Ex. AW1/B. I
also clicked the photographs Mark A to H and Mark J to L
of the Langar and Mela being conducted by the
respondents on the disputed land after the stay order
granted by the Hon’ble High Court. While conducting
the Mela on the disputed land use to collect the money
from the people. The respondents also charge Rs.2600/-
on 15.01.2023 by issuing the slip to me, which is Mark M.
I also made a written complaint to the Deputy
Commissioner/ Collector Ex. AW1/C but nothing has
been done by the authorities. The respondents have
intentionally and willfully disobeyed the orders of the
Hon’ble Court.
xxx xxx Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate
General for the respondents-State.
My year of birth is 1962. The land in dispute
was allotted to my forefathers. I do not know the year of
allotment of the land in dispute to my forefather. I do not
know the Khasra Numbers of the land which was allotted
to my forefather. I do not know the Khasra number of the
land which was allotted to my forefather was 100/2. I do
not know that the Khasra numbers of the land which is in
the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh is 100/1.
I do not know the land adjacent to the Shiv Mandir is
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023in RSA No. 196 of 2021
having very high market value. I do not know that Khasra
number 100/1 was earlier in the name of Gram Panchayat
and vide Mutation Number 29 dated 16.02.1977 and vide
Mutation Number 108, dated 28.05.1981, the same was
entered in the name of State of Himachal Pradesh. It is
correct that the eviction proceeding was initiated against
me by the State and the decision was passed by the
Collector by partly allowing the eviction proceedings. It
is incorrect that I have constructed a juice corner on the
land in dispute after the stay order passed by the Hon’ble
High Court. Self stated that I have a moveable juice
corner on a cart. It is incorrect that the above said
photographs placed on the record are not of the land in
dispute. It is incorrect that the respondents are hosting
Mela on their own Khasra number. It is incorrect that the
Shiv Mandir Temple Committee has charged me for user
charges for installing the shop in the State land during
Mela time. Self stated that I use to install my shop in my
own land. It is incorrect that the State has not raised any
temporary sheds on the land in dispute. It is incorrect that
no violation has been done by the respondents. It is
incorrect that the respondents have not violated the orders
of the Hon’ble Court.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023in RSA No. 196 of 2021
AW-2 Statement of ASI Dharam Chand, aged 56
years presented posted at Police Station
Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
27.12.2023
Stated that I received a complaint Ex. AW1/B
from the applicant Manohar Lal. I entered the Rapat No.
41, dated 06.02.2023 on the complaint filed by the
applicant. During investigation it was found that the
Civil litigation between Manohar Lal and the State of
Himachal Pradesh was already pending adjudication in
the Court, therefore, I did not conduct any further
investigation.
xxx xxx Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate
General for the respondents-State.
Opportunity given-nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in RSA No. 196 of 2021
AW-3 Statement of Shri Devi Chand, aged 49 years
presently posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh
On Oath
27.12.2023
Stated that I am posted as Sub Divisional
Magistrate Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., from
03.03.2023. I am aware that the contempt proceedings
have been initiated by the applicant in the Hon’ble High
Court. As per our record the applicant had issued the
legal notice dated Ex. AW1/A. I am Assistant
Commissioner, Mandir Committee Shiv Temple Baijnath,
District Kangra. I am conversant with the land adjacent to
Shiv Mandi Baijnath. I was aware about the status quo
order dated 11.11.2021, passed by the Hon’ble High
Court. After the passing of the status quo order Shiv
Mandi Committee or the State conducted any Mela on the
land in dispute. Self stated that inspite of the stay order of
the Hon’ble High Court that the applicant himself has
constructed a Shed on the land in dispute and is running a
juice bar on the said land. There are two Khasra numbers
in land in dispute which are 1988/100/1 and 1988/100/2.
At present the applicant is in possession of both the
Khasra numbers and the above said Khasra numbers are in
the ownership of the State Government. The Mark M is a
donation slip to the temple trust. I am not aware that
Manohar Lal (applicant) has also donated an amount of
Rs.2600/- in favour of Shiv Temple Trust. I do not know
that the photographs Mark A to H and Mark J to Mark L
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in RSA No. 196 of 2021
of the land in dispute. Since the stay order had already
been granted by the Hon’ble Court, therefore, the
respondents have not done anything on the land in dispute,
hence, after the receipt of the legal notice, no action was
required to be taken by the respondents.
xxx xxx Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate
General for the respondents-State.
There is no violation of the stay order by the
respondents after the passing of the status quo order by the
Hon’ble High Court.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023in RSA No. 196 of 2021
AW-3 Statement of Shri Atharv Sharma, Advocate for
the applicant.
Without Oath
27.12.2023
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant since the list of witness has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2023
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in RSA No. 196 of 2021
27.12.2023
Present: Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms. Aanandita
Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents.
Statement of Shri Manohar Lal, ASI Dharam
Chand and Shri Devi Chand are recorded as AW1 to
AW3, respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant
vide his separate statement has closed the evidence on
behalf of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks
time for RWs. Let the steps, if any, be taken within
fifteen days, thereafter the process be issued for the
service of RWs for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th December, 2023
(Pritam)
RSA No. 195 of 2021
28.12.2023
Present: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.
1 to 3.
Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent No.8.
As per the office report, PF and list of witnesses
have been filed by the applicant, however, road and diet
money has not been deposited till date due to which the
summons could not be issued to the witnesses.
Learned vice counsel for the appellants/applicants
seeks some more time for depositing the road and diet
money.
Let the road and diet money be deposited within
three days thereafter, the process be issued for the
service of AWs for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th December, 2023
(Pritam)
COMS No. 8 of 2018
29.12.2023
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Dhananjay, Advocate for the plaintiff
None for the defendants No.1 and 3.
The perusal of the case file shows that the list of
witnesses has not been filed till date by the plaintiff. The
learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that she
has been recently engaged by the plaintiff and will file
the list of witnesses within a period of seven days and
produce the plaintiffs’ witnesses on self responsibility.
The learned counsel seeks for more time for PWs.
In view of the above submission for the learned
counsel for the plaintiff, let the case be listed before
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for the fixing the date of
PWs
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
29th December, 2023
(Gaurav)
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023
02.01.2024
Present: Mr. Goldy Dhiman, Advocate, for the applicant.
None for the defendants No.1 and 3.
None for the respondent.
As per the office report, steps for summoning the
applicant witnesses have not been taken.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due
to health issue, the applicant is not able to come to
Shimla in winter season and prayed that the matter be
listed after 15th March, 2024.
The perusal of case file shows that three
opportunities have already been granted for taking steps
by the applicant but till date steps have not been taken
for AWs.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd January, 2024
(Pritam)
Submitted that a telephonic message has
been received from Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmed
Mir, Former Chief Justice of this High Court to reserve
two rooms at Himachal Sadan, Delhi for the stay of his
son-in-law/daughter on and w.e.f. 07.01.2024 to
14.01.2024. It has been further directed that in case of
non-availability of the rooms at Himachal Sadan Delhi,
the reservation/booking be got done at Himachal
Bhawan, Delhi for the aforesaid dates.
This is for your kind information and
necessary action at your end. You are further requested
that after doing the needful information be given to the
undersigned so that His Lordship may be informed
accordingly.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
02.01.2024
Ld. Registrar (Protocol)
Civil Suit No. 4085 of 2013
PW-4 Statement of Shri Raju, S/o Shri Vikram Jeet
aged 32 years presently posted as Deputy
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Lift Road, the
Mall, Shimla.
On Oath
02.01.2024
Stated that I am posted as Deputy Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Lift Road, Shimla from May 2022.
In the year 2019, Shri Prem Banga was Chief Manager of
the Punjab National Bank, Lift Road, Shimla and now he
has been retired. I have been duly authorized by the Bank
to make the statement in the present case. As per our
record, the certificate dated 04.07.2013, Ex. PW4/A, has
been issued by the Bank. I have been duly authorized vide
letter dated 02.01.2024, Ex. PW4/B by the Senior
Manager, Punjab National Bank to make the statement in
the present case.
xxx xxx Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for
the defendant.
It is correct that generally all the certificate
issued by the Bank are on the letterhead of the Bank. I
am identify signatures in red circle A on Ex. PW4/A, and
the same is of Shri Prem Banga. I have never worked with
Shri Prem Banga as he had retired before my joining in
the present Branch. It is correct that Ex. PW4/A has not
been issued on the original letterhead of the Bank. Self
stated that Bank generally issued such type of certificate in
printout mode from the computer and affix the stamp on
the printout generated document. It is correct that prior to
the year 2013 in case some RTGS is made from the
account of some person then the same is reflected in his
statement of accounts. I do not know on whose request
the certificate Ex. PW4/A was issued by the Bank.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd January, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 4085 of 2013
PW-5 Statement of Shri Ajay Kumar, S/o Shri Milap
Chand, aged 35 years presently posted as
Manager, UCO Bank, Shimla Main, Karol
House, Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
02.01.2024
Stated that I am posted as Manager, UCO
Bank, Shimla Main from June 2022. I have been duly
authorized vide letter dated 01.01.2024, Ex. PW5/A by the
Chief Manager UCO Bank to make the statement in the
present case. As per our record, certificate dated
03.07.2013 Ex. PW5/B, (objected to on the mode of proof)
has been issued from our Bank.
xxx xxx Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for
the defendant.
It is correct that I cannot identify signature in
red circle A on Ex. PW5/B. However, the there is seal of
the Bank on the said document. It is correct that generally
the certificate are being issued on the letterhead of the
Bank. I cannot say the letterhead was prevalent in the year
2013 on which the certificate Ex. PW5/B has been issued.
It is correct that prior to the year 2013 in case some
RTGS is made from the account of some person then the
same is reflected in his statement of accounts. I do not
know on whose request the certificate Ex. PW5/B was
issued by the Bank.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd January, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 4085 of 2013
PW-5 Statement of Shri Dev Raj, Advocate, High
Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Without Oath
02.01.2024
Stated that the plaintiff has examined Shri
Prem Banga, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank as
PW3 and on that date he was deferred since he had not
brought the original record. Now, the said witness has
been retired and in lieu of that today Shri Raju, Deputy
Bank Manager, has been examined as PW4, therefore, I
give up PW3 being unnecessary and repetitive in nature.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd January, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 4085 of 2013
02.01.2024
Present: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Dev Raj, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the defendant.
Statement of Shri Raju, Deputy Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Shimla and Shri Ajay Kumar, Manager,
UCO Bank, Shimla Main, are recorded as PW4 and
PW5, respectively.
Shri Ajay Kumar, Manager UCO Bank has
filed reply to the notice under Order 16 Rule 12 CPC.
The explanation given by him seems to be plausible,
hence the notice issued under Order 16 Rule 12 CPC to
Shri Ajay Kumar is dropped.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date of PWs and
witness mentioned at Serial Number 3, 6 and 7 in the list
of witnesses be summoned for the said date.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd January, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2022
03.01.2024
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Bhalla,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate, for the
defendant.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff submits that
no witness is present today. However, learned counsel
for the defendant has submitted that he has filed an
application for setting aside the ex-parte order of the
defendant today itself.
Since the application for setting aside the ex-parte
order has been filed by the defendant, therefore, it would
be appropriate that the application be decided at the first
instance before the ex-parte evidence is recorded.
Accordingly, let the said application be listed
before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd January, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 127 of 2022
03.01.2024
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Bhalla,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate, for the
defendant.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff submits that
no witness is present today. However, learned counsel
for the defendant has submitted that he has filed an
application for setting aside the ex-parte order of the
defendant today itself.
Since the application for setting aside the ex-parte
order has been filed by the defendant, therefore, it would
be appropriate that the application be decided first
instance before the ex-parte evidence is recorded.
Accordingly, let the said application be listed
before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd January, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 924 of 2022
04.01.2024
Present: Mr. Pranav Kumar Kaushal, Advocate, for the
applicants.
None for the respondent.
As per office report, the applicants witnesses are to
be produced on self responsibility, however, learned
counsel for the applicants has submitted that he has
informed his client through whatsapp message and
telephonically but he has not responded to the message
or to the telephonic call. Learned counsel further
submits that his client is not in contact with him as he is
not responding to their calls due to which no witness is
present today.
Four opportunities for AWs have already been
granted. Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th January, 2024
(Pritam)
Submitted that in continuation of earlier
intimation dated 02.01.2024, a telephonic message has
been received from Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmed
Mir, Former Chief Justice of this High Court to reserve
two rooms at Himachal Sadan, Delhi for the stay of his
son-in-law/daughter on and w.e.f. 06.01.2024 to
12.01.2024 instead of 07.01.2024 to 14.01.2024. It has
been further directed that in case of non-availability of
the rooms at Himachal Sadan Delhi, the
reservation/booking be got done at Himachal Bhawan,
Delhi for the aforesaid dates (i.e. 06.01.2024 to
12.01.2024).
This is for your kind information and
necessary action at your end. You are further requested
that after doing the needful information be given to the
undersigned so that His Lordship may be informed
accordingly.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
04.01.2024
Ld. Registrar (Protocol)
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
RW-1 Statement of Shri Lekh Raj, S/o Late Shri
Ranjha Ram, aged 66 years Village and Post
Office Ludret, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
04.01.2024
Stated that I have come to the Court today
because I have received summon to appear as a witness. I
know the appellant Subhash Chand as we reside in same
village. Subahash Chand has made construction of toilet.
Subhash Chand is constructing the toilet in his own land
bearing Khasra No.42. The disputed land is a different
land and Subhash Chand is constructing toilet on his own
land.
xxx xxx Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for
the respondents-applicants.
Subhash Chand is my nephew. There is no
dispute of mine with respondent (Suram Chand alia Suram
Singh). It is correct that I stood surety to appellant
Subhash Chand in Police Challan 126-II/2011 in Case No.
706/2013, which was decided by JMFC Jawali, District
Kangra on 13.10.2011. It is correct that the said criminal
case was initiated against Shri Subhash Chand at the
instance of respondent No.1 (Suram Chand). I have seen
the land in dispute. I am not aware about the Khasra
numbers of the land in dispute. I have seen Khasra
Number 42 in the revenue record on which Subhash
Chand had raised toilet. I am not aware that Subhash
Chand or any other party had got demarcated the land
before raising the toilet on the said land by Subhash
Chand. I am aware that the Court has restrained both the
parties to the lis by granting the stay order. I am not
aware that the respondents had made a complaint in the
Panchayat when Subhash Chand started to raise
construction. It is correct that the photographs Mark F1 to
F6 and G1 to G3, are of the disputed land where the
construction was being raised by Subhash Chand. I am
not aware that Shri Suram Chand had filed a complaint
before the police and revenue authorities against Subhash
Chand. I am not aware on the basis of the said complaint
the police and the revenue authorities visited the spot for
carrying out investigation. I am not aware that the police
and the revenue officers visited the spot twice. I am not
aware that after filing the contempt proceedings in the
High Court, the revenue authority visited the spot and
demarcated the land in dispute. It is incorrect that at the
time of demarcation I was present on the spot. It is
incorrect that I have strained relation with Suram Chand
since I stood surety to Subhash Chand. It is correct that I
have come to Shimla today with Subhash Chand. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false today because I am
related to Subhash Chand. It is incorrect that Subhash
Chand has disobeyed the stay order passed by the Hon’ble
High Court.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th January, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
RW-2 Statement of Shri Hans Raj, S/o Shri Dharam
Chand, aged 49 years Village and Post Office
Ludret, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
04.01.2024
Stated that I have come to the Court today
because I have received summon to appear as a witness. I
know the parties to the lis since they belong to our village.
I am aware about the land dispute between the parties.
Subhash Chand had raised the construction at Khasra No.
42, which is not a land of dispute. My land is adjacent to
the land in dispute. Subhash Chand has not violated the
order of the Hon’ble Court as he has raised the
construction in his own land.
xxx xxx Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for
the respondents-applicants.
Subhash Chand is my cousin brother. He is son
of my uncle (chacha). The name of the grandfather of my
and Subhash Chand is Taju Ram. I have seen the land in
dispute. Self stated that the same is situated besides my
land. Subhash Chand had constructed toilet and
bathroom and also constructed septic tank. I have seen the
construction raised by Subhash Chand. Photographs Mark
F1 to F5 pertains to the land where the construction was
being raised by Subhash Chand. I am not able to identify
the land which has been shown in the photographs Mark
G1 to G3. I am aware about the Khasra No. 42 as it is
adjacent to my land and there are pakka points fixed by
the revenue authority. The Khasra Numbers pertaining to
the land in dispute are 43 and 44. I am aware about the
Khasra Numbers since my land is also situated besides
these Khasra Numbers. I have not seen the case file or the
documents pertaining to the case. It is correct that Suram
Singh has filed a Civil Suit against my father and after the
death of my father I was impleaded as one of the
defendant in that suit. It is correct that Ex. A-1 is the
certified copy of the above said Civil Suit No. 86/13/2006.
It is correct that Suram Chand had filed an FIR No. 368 of
2010 against us. Self stated that in that FIR we were
acquitted by the Hon’ble Court. Shri Madan Lal is my
uncle (Chacha). I do not know when Subhash Chand
raised the construction then Suram Chand and others
raised objection and made a complaint to Panchayat and
Police authorities. It is incorrect that during the pendency
of these proceedings the demarcation was being carried
out by the revenue authority. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false today since I have strained relation with
Suram Chand. It is incorrect that Subhash Chand has
disobeyed the stay order passed by the Hon’ble High
Court.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th January, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 13640 of 2021 in RSA No. 481 of 2016
04.01.2024
Present: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant
Sharma, Advocate, for the non-applicant-appellant.
Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the respondent-
applicant.
Statement of Shri Lekh Raj and
Shri Hans Raj are recorded as RW1 and RW2,
respectively. Learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that he will produce Subhash Chand on self
responsibility on the next date of hearing.
Let PW at Serial No. 4 be summoned for the said
date.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for RWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th January, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 128 of 2012
05.01.2024
Present: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Yash
Wardhan Chauhan, Advocate, for the plaintiff/non-
counter claimant.
Kr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the
defendant/counter claimant.
As per the office report, steps for summoning the
defendant witness mentioned at Sr. No. 3 in the list of
witness has not been taken. Learned counsel for the
defendant has submitted that he will take the steps within
three days.
On taking steps within three days, let the
summons be issued for the service of witness mentioned
at Sr. No.3, for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th January, 2024
(Pritam)
I have been directed by Hon’ble Ms. Justice
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., that there is some connectivity
issue of Airtel in her Chambers and she is not able to
make or receive whatsapp as well as ordinary calls.
You are, therefore, requested to looking into
the matter to resolve the issue, raised by the Hon’ble
Judge, at earliest, so that no inconvenience is cause to
the Hon’ble Judge, please.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
08.01.2024
Ld. Registrar (JB)
Civil Suit No. 76 of 2015
08.01.2024
Present: Mr. Sanket Kankhyan, Advocate, vice Mr. Dinesh
Thakur, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate, vice Mr. Tara Singh
Chauhan, Advocate, for the defendants No. 1 and
2.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff seeks one
more opportunity to produce the plaintiff evidence on
self responsibility.
The perusal of case file shows that more than four
opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiff
for producing his evidenced but till date no witness has
been produced for examination of the PWs.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th January, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2014
09.01.2024
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Ms. Ritu Singh, Advocate, for defendants No. 1
and 2.
Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate, for defendants No.
3 to 6.
Respondent No.7 already ex-parte.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
the plaintiffs are not present today for adducing their
evidence. He seeks adjournment for today.
Let the case be listed for plaintiffs evidence and the
plaintiffs be produced on self responsibility for the date
to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th January, 2024
(Pritam)
RFA No. 102 of 2015
09.01.2024
Present: Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed
application for giving the undertaking as well as surety in
compliance to the order dated 24.11.2023, passed by the
Hon’ble High Court.
Shri Shivender Thakur, had filed an application for
release of the amount of compensation for his minor
children, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Court subject
to furnishing of his undertaking and surety bond that the
amount, so released, shall be used for the studies of his
children. However,
The undertakings have been filed by Shri Shivender
Thakur in the form of affidavit averring therein that he will
use the amount for the studies of his children, namely Arya
Veer Singh and Saisha Thakur. The undertaking so given
by the applicant is duly supported by the surety bond in the
form of affidavit furnished by Shri Sunil Kumar brother of
the deponent, which is duly supported by the Jamabandi for
the year 2017-2018, issued on 05.01.2024. Shri Shivender
Thakur, is duly identified by Shri Digvijay Singh Thakur,
Advocate.
Accordingly, the undertaking as well as the surety
bond furnished by the applicant is duly attested and
accepted by me. Accordingly, the applications are
allowed. All the papers be tagged with the file and let the
needful be done.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th January, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 409 of 2023 in RSA
10.01.2024
Present: Mr. Dalip Chand Advocate, vice Mr. V.D. Khidtta,
Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
As per office report, steps i.e. list of witnesses, PF,
road and diet money have not been filed by the applicant as
of date.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant submits that
he will take the steps within one week.
Accordingly, on taking the steps within one week, let
the process be issued for the service of AWs returnable for
the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th January, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 478 of 2023 in RSA
10.01.2024
Present: None for the applicant.
Mr. Prashant Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent.
As per office report, steps for summoning the AWs
i.e. list of witnesses, PF, road and diet money have not
been filed by the applicant as of date. Two opportunities
have already been granted to the applicant for doing the
needful.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the Hon’ble
Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th January, 2024
(Pritam)
COPC No. 106 of 2018
AW-2 Statement of Smt. Bimla Verma W/o Shri
Kanhiya Lal Verma, aged 75 years Village
Banwai, Post Office Chalog, Tehsil and
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
11.01.2024
Stated that the age of my husband Shri Kanhiya
Lal Verma is about 86 years. My husband is bed ridden as
of date . My husband has executed Special Power of
Attorney Ex. AW2/A in my favour for filing signing the
pleadings as well as for adducing the evidence on his
behalf. Civil litigation was going on between my husband
and Nanak Chand which ultimately came to the High
Court and Shri Nanak Chand has filed a Regular Second
Appeal No. 703 of 2012 in the High Court. In that RSA
compromise decree was passed by the Hon’ble High Court
on 16.10.2016, which is Ex. AW2/B. The said
compromise decree was passed on the basis of terms of
the settlement Ex. AW2/C arrived at between the parties.
After the compromise decree we left 3.5 feet path in
favour of Nanak Chand for their use and raised fencing on
the other part of the land. But Nanak Chand alongwith his
wife, son and daughter-in-law uprooted the fencing raised
by us and threw it in our street (Gali). They also used
filthy language to us and the said incidence had happened
after 15-16 days of the passing of the order by the Hon’ble
High Court. They also use to scatter garbage in the suit
land and had gathered heap of stones on the said land. The
respondent has also raised a room on the path which was
left by us for their use. The respondents do not allow us to
use the disputed land. The respondents are not adhering to
the terms of settlement as well as the orders of the Court.
Thereafter, my husband served a notice Ex. AW2/D
(objected to on the mode of proof) to Shri Nanak Chand
through his Advocate. But inspite of the notice the
respondents did not stop the interference in the disputed
land. Since the respondents are not adhering to the order
of the Hon’ble Court, therefore, my husband constrained
to file this Contempt Petition in the Hon’ble Court. I have
also clicked the photographs Mark A-1 to A-7 from my
mobile. The respondents are willfully and intentionally
disobeying the order of the Hon’ble Court to harass us.
xxx xxx Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate,
for the respondents.
The Khasra No. of the disputed land is 366.
My husband had purchased the land from Bishi Ram. I
am not aware about the other co-owners of the said land.
My husband had purchased the said land in the year 1971
and since then we are owner of the land in dispute. It is
incorrect that Shri Gauri Shankar is also one of the co-
owner of the suit land. My husband has not file any other
case pertaining to the suit land. I am not aware that my
husband has filed a Civil Suit No. 10 of 2023, pertaining
to the suit land involved in this case, which is pending
adjudication before Court No.VIII, Shimla. I have
appeared as a witness in the other case, which is pending
in Court No. VI, Shimla, on behalf of my husband. Self
stated that the said suit pertains to Khasra No. 302. It is
incorrect that in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2023, we have
claimed possession of the path on the land at Khasra No.
366. It is correct that on the orders of the Hon’ble Court
the demarcation of Khasra No. 366 was conducted on
10.01.2022. It is incorrect that the path on Khasra No. 366
was delivered to Nanak Chand after the demarcation
ordered by the Court. It is incorrect that my husband is
himself contemnor as the said path was never handed over
to the respondents. It is incorrect that the respondents
never interfered on the disputed land or path. Self stated
that the respondents are interfering in the said land. It is
incorrect that photographs Mark A-1 to A-7 are not of the
land in dispute. I have clicked the photographs two
months ago when the respondents started to raise some
construction. It is correct that I have not placed the copy
of the newspaper in the contempt petition. Self stated that
the newspaper is apparent on the photograph. I cannot
give the details of the cases which are filed by my
husband. Shri Nanak Chand belongs to our village. Shri
Nanak Chand is son of maternal aunt (Massi) of my father.
It is incorrect that my husband has filed many cases
against their relatives. It is incorrect that the present
contempt petition filed by my husband is abuse of process
of law just to harass the respondents.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th January, 2024
(Pritam)
COPC No. 106 of 2018
Statement of Smt. Bimla Verma W/o Shri
Kanhiya Lal Verma, aged 75 years Village
Banwai, Post Office Chalog, Tehsil and
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
11.01.2024
Stated that I do not want to examine any other
witness and close the evidence on behalf of the applicant.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th January, 2024
(Pritam)
COPC No. 106 of 2018
11.01.2024
Present: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit
Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Statement of Smt. Bimla Verma, is recorded as
AW2, vide her separate statement she close the evidence
on behalf of the applicant/petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time for
taking the steps for RWs.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen days.
Thereafter, the process be issued for the service of RWs
returnable for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th January, 2024
(Pritam)
Submitted that the Carpet provided in the
Chambers of Learned Registrar (Judicial) is too dirty and
the same is required to be dry-cleaned at the earliest.
(Pritam Singh)
Court Secretary
12.01.2023
Assistant Registrar (GAD)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2013
DW-4 Statement of Shri Mandeep Sandhu, S/o Shri
S.S. Sandhu, aged 65 years, R/o R-5, Greater
Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-48.
On Oath
27.02.2024
Stated that defendant No.1, i.e. Bhangoo &
Company is a partnership firm comprises two partners,
namely Futuristic Solutions Limited & Futuristic
Remedies Limited and I am a Director in both these
Companies. Bhangoo & Company was formed in October
2004, and they successfully bid for the auction of suit
property. They were successful bidders held in the
auction on 30.10.2004. Subsequently on 17th of January,
2005, the recovery officer DRT-II, Chandigarh, issued
letter of sale/sale certificate in favour of defendant No.1.
Thereafter, someone from the public appealed against the
said auction and vide order dated 30th March, 2005, the
Presiding Officer of DRT Chandigarh annulled the auction
in favour of defendant No.1. Thereafter, nine existing
partners of Defendant No.1-Firm contacted me and against
monies received by them agreed to transfer the firm i.e.
Defendant No.1 to the above said two companies i.e.
Defendant Nos. 6 and 7. For this purpose on 3rd May,
2005 an admission-cum-retirement deed Ex. DW4/A-1,
was executed and in this four of the existing partners
retired and defendants No. 6 and 7 were included as
partners. Thereafter, on 4th May, 2005, another admission-
cum-retirement deed Mark-1, now Ex. DW4/A-2, was
executed vide which remaining other five partners also
retired, thus, leaving defendant No.6 and 7, the sole
partners of Bhangoo & Company. Thereafter, Defendant
No.1, approached the DRAT New Delhi against the order
dated 30.03.2005, passed by the DRT, Chandigarh
challenging cancellation of the auction/sale and the DRAT
on 29th November, 2005 set aside the order dated
30.03.2005 and upheld the auction/sale in favour of
defendant No.1 and directed to handover the possession of
the suit property to defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant
No.1, approached the DIC Baddi, District Solan for the
mutation of the said property in favour of defendant No.1.
Defendant No.1 was informed by DIC Baddi that since the
sale letter dated 17.01.2005, contained the names of nine
partners of defendant No.1, therefore, the mutation in
favour of defendant No.1 with now just two partners i.e.
defendant Nos. 6 and 7 will entail first mutating the
property in favour of those nine partners and then
transferring it to the two partners, which each time entail
extra cost. This process of payment of double fee appeared
bizzared to defendant No.1 and they continued to liase
with the department to transfer the suit property in favour
of defendant No.1 having two partners. Some time in
February 2012, Mr. Gaurav Rajput the authorized
representative of the Plaintiff-Company alongwith a
broker Mr. Manu Sharma contacted me and made an offer
to purchase the suit property. Mr. Gaurav represented that
he was well up with the department as well as the political
establishment of the State and that he would resolve the
issue of mutation or anything else at his own cost. The
deal made was for Rs.1.5 Crores in addition to the
aforesaid “on as is where is basis”. The agreement Ex.
PW3/B in this regard was executed on 11.04.2012. For
this purpose Mr. Gaurav Rajput had paid me Rs.50,000/-
cash earlier as a token money and Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rs.
eighteen lacs) by way of a Cheque favouring defendant
No.7, dated 11.04.2012. The said cheque bounced twice
for want of sufficient funds. I have brought the original
returned cheque alongwith return memo of the Bank. Mr.
Gaurav Rajput on my pursuance subsequently transferred
Rs.18,00,000/- (Rs. Eighteen lacs only) by way of RTGS
on 19.04.2012 from a company called Countryside Agro
Produce Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Gaurav Rajput also transferred
Rs.15,06802/- on 11.04.2012 and Rs. 15,06,803/- on
12.04.2012 (total amounting to Rs. 30,13,605/-) vide two
RTGSs transaction in our company Diana Eurochem Pvt.
Ltd., and he paid a sum of Rs. 1,36,395/- in cash to me.
The total amount paid therefore, comes to Rs.50,00,000/-
(Rs. Fifty lacs). The last date of balance payment and
execution of sale deed after him having completed the
process of mutation was fixed as 10.05.2012. Mr.
Gaurav Rajput, after this got into his act of attempting to
sought out the departmental issues with regard to the suit
property. However, despite his perceived connections did
not get the clearance regarding sanction of mutation from
the concerned department. He too was confronted with
the payments of large amounts, which probably was not
part of his plan. By now, he had become reasonably
friendly with me and orally sought more time to execute
the documents and also requested if I could check with my
Lawyers or anybody else for the departmental clearances.
He continued to be in touch regarding any development on
this count, but I was unable to get hold of any advice for
him. On 7th February, 2013, Mr. Gaurav Rajput visited
my office at Delhi and discussed this issue thread bare and
finally decided to call off the deal. It was then agreed that
defendant No.1, will refund Rs. 32,00,000/- and Rs.
18,00,000/- will be forfeited in favour of defendant No.1.
An amount of Rs.32,00,000/- was paid to Mr. Gaurav
Rajput in cash vide two receipts amounting to
Rs.30,13,605/- and Rs.1,36,395/-. The copies of receipt
amounting to Rs.1,36,395/- Mark `B’ is now Ex.
DW-4/B. I have brought both the original receipts today
in the Court. I had agreed to this settlement as I did not
want any problems later and the fact that Mr. Gaurav
Rajput was agreeable on forfeiture of Rs.18,00,000/-.
After this transaction of refund took place, Mr. Gaurav
Rajput changed his stance and started bringing hoodlums
to our office in New Delhi. A complaint Ex. DW-4/C, in
this regard was also filed with the local police at Delhi by
my staff as on that day I was not present in the office
(original seen and returned). (Objected to on the mode
of proof). In the meanwhile, seeing over a period of time
Mr. Gaurav Rajput was not having funds/influence as
claimed by him, the defendant No.1, moved an application
for amendment of the sale certificate dated 17.01.2005,
before DRT-I, Chandigarh, incorporating defendants No.
6 and 7 as partners in defendant No.1 in place of above
stated old nine partners. The DRT-I, Chandigarh, vide
order dated 17.12.2012, Ex.DW-1/A, passed the order and
deleted the old partners and issued amended sale
certificate Ex. PW-2/C. In the meanwhile, Plaintiff-
Company filed the Civil Suit against the defendants for
specific performance of the agreement dated 11.04.2012.
During the pendency of the present suit, I came to know
that Mr. Gaurav Rajput has formed so many companies
the names of which are already on record, so much so, that
he has also got Director Identification Number (DIN) in
two different names, namely Gaurav Rajput and Gaurav
Arora to give effect his illegal designs. Even otherwise,
the drafts amouting to Rs. 45,60,019/- (Rs. Forty five lace
sixty thousand and nineteen only) duly issued by Punjab
& Sindh Bank, New Delhi in favour of Moral Holding
Ltd. Mark `C’, was not issued in favour of defendant
No.1 and even if this is accounted for did not complete the
balance payable amount of Rs. One crore. Another draft
of Rs.18,00,000/- Mark `D’, as claimed was never
delivered to the defendants No. 1, 6 and 7. The plaintiff
has not fulfilled the terms of the agreement and was not
ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement as
the plaintiff was not having sufficient means to pay the
sale consideration and other fees and expenses which were
to be borne by the plaintiff. The defendants No. 1, 6 and 7
were always ready and willing to perform their part of the
contract/agreement. The plaintiff has filed the present
case against defendant No.1, 6 and 7 without any basis
and in order to harass the defendants.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate,
for the Plaintiff.
I informed the plaintiff about the factum of
defendants No. 6 and 7 being the only partners of
defendant No.1 during the course of negotiation regarding
the sale of the suit property. Self stated that the plaintiff
was made well aware of this fact before execution of the
agreement. Defendants No. 6 and 7 passed resolutions
dated 15.11.2013, authorizing me to appear and act on
their behalf. Self stated that I have brought both the
certified true copies of these resolutions today. It is wrong
to suggest that the companies incorporated under
Companies Act cannot be Partners in a Partnership Firm.
Initially I was not given any written information to the
DIC Baddi, regarding none sanctioning of the mutation in
favour of defendant No.1 through defendants No. 6 and 7
being its partners on the ground that there were originally
nine partners in defendant No.1-Firm and I was informed
orally by the department. However, subsequently the DIC
Baddi has raised an amount of more than Rs. Two crores
to be paid for getting the mutation approved. I have
placed on record the said demand by the DIC, which is
Ex. DW-3/A. Defendant No.1 has not got effect the
mutation till date. Self stated that the matter regarding
sanction of mutation was not perused by defendant No.1
due to the pendency of the present suit. My mobile No. is
98100-19310. It is correct to suggest that on 7th February,
2013, I sent a message to Mr. Gaurav Rajput that “I will
not be there. I’ll call you in a while”. Self stated that I
was to go somewhere which got cancelled and I was
available in the office when Mr. Gaurav Rajput finally
arrived on that day. It is incorrect that no meeting was
held with Mr. Gaurav Rajput with me as I was not
available in the office on that day i.e. 07.02.2013. It is
incorrect that Mr. Gaurav Rajput never agreed for any
forfeiture of the amount. Defendants No. 1, 6 and 7 use to
maintain Books of Account. I do not remember whether
there is any entry regarding payment of cash amount of
Rs.32,00,000/- in favour of Mr. Gaurav Rajput as on
07.02.2013 in Account Books maintained by defendants
No. 1,6 and 7. Self stated that I have to verify from the
record since the transaction pertains to the year 2013. I
did not apprised my counsel regarding cash refund of
Rs.32,00,000/- which was made on 07.02.2013 at the
time of preparation of written statement. Self stated that I
informed this fact to my counsel at the time of cross
examination of Mr. Gaurav Rajput. I am aware that as of
date there is a limit regarding cash transaction under
Income Tax Act. Self stated that however, in the year
2013 I am not sure whether the said embargo was there or
not. It is wrong to suggest that I had never made any cash
payment of Rs.32,00,000/- to Mr. Gaurav Rajput. It is
incorrect to suggest that the defendants backed out from
the deal as the defendants have to pay more than Rs. Two
crores for the sanctioning of mutation. Self stated that this
payment of Rs. Two crores was to be made by the
plaintiff in terms of the agreement. It is correct that
expect agreement 11.04.2012 Ex. PW-3/B, there is no
other agreement between the parties. It is incorrect that
Mr. Gaurav Rajput or any other person on behalf of the
plaintiff agreed to get the mutation sanctioned in favour of
defendant No.1. It is incorrect that Mr. Gaurav Rajput or
any other person on behalf of the plaintiff agreed to pay
any amount for the sanction of mutation in favour of
defendant No.1. I know all the Directors of Moral
Holdings Limited as I am also one the Director of the said
Company. It is incorrect to suggest that the plaintiff got
prepared demand draft Mark `C’, in favour of Moral
Holdings Limited at my instance. I am not aware about
the outcome of the complaint Ex. DW-4/C. I came to
know that Mr. Gaurav Rajput and Gaurav Arora are the
same person from the record of ROC pertaining to certain
companies wherein he and his wife are Directors. I did
not make any complaint to the ROC in this regard. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Piyush Dhanotia,
Advocate vice Mr. Anshul Bansal, Advocate
for defendants No. 2,3 and 8.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th February, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2013
27.02.2024
Present: Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati
Verma, Advocate, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate with Ms. Pragati,
Advocate for defendants No. 1,6 and 7.
Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate, vice Mr. Anshul
Bansal, Advocate, for defendants No. 2,3 and 8.
Defendants No. 4 and 5 already ex-parte.
Statement of Shri Mandeep Sandhu, is recorded as
DW-4. The list of witness of defendants No. 1,6 and 7 is
exhausted. Learned vice counsel for defendants No. 2,3
and 8 seeks time for DWs.
Learned the steps, if any, be taken within two weeks,
thereafter the process be issued for the service of DWs on
behalf of defendants No. 2,3 and 8.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th February, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 40 of 2009
28.02.2024
Present: Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati
Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranjal
Munjal & Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocates, for the
respondent/non-objector.
As per the office report, summons issued to PW-1, has
been received back with effective service. However, an email
has been received from Dr. Debasish Basu, that as per the
policy of the PGIMER, the record pertaining to the Indoor
Patient are retained only for 10 years and thereafter, the same
is destroyed as per the policy. The circular pertaining to that
policy of destruction as well as list of the destroyed files has
also been annexed with the email, wherein at Sl. No. 147 in
the list of destroyed files the record pertaining to the patient
(Surinder Swaroop-39722) has been destroyed. The email
sent by Dr. Debasish Basu alongwith the annexed documents
is taken on record.
However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the concerned official/officer has been
cited as a witness he or she is required to depose this fact
after putting personal appearance before the Court.
Accordingly, the email sent by the concerned
doctor cannot be taken as evidence on his/her behalf.
Therefore, let fresh summons be again issued to this witness
for deposing before the Court after putting his/her
appearance. Let the fresh summons be issued to the said
witness for 12.03.2024 on taking steps within two days as the
evidence in the present matter has been directed by the
Hon’ble Court to be completed in the month of March, 2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28 February, 2024
th
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
01.03.2024
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek
Thakur, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan,
Advocate, for the defendant.
As per the office report, steps for summoning the PWs
have not been taken. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff
seeks time for doing the needful.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen days. Thereafter
process be issued for the service of PWs, returnable for
06.05.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) 891 of 2022 in RS No. 46 of 2017
AW-1 Statement of Shri Padam Nabh S/o Shri Gopi
Chand, aged about 48 years, R/o Village
Sahaut, P.O. Khaneol, Tehsil Karsog, District
Mandi, H.P.
On Oath
01.03.2024
Stated that in RSA No. 46 of 2017, which has
been filed by my father, the Hon’ble Court has directed to
maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit
land vide order dated 15.03.2017 and the said order was
made absolute by the Hon’ble Court on 21.06.2017, in the
presence of the learned counsel for the parties. The
disputed Khasra No. is 1658, measuring 0-11-10 Bighas.
In November, 2021, the respondent Bhupender Kumar
raised the construction of safety tank, over which two
pillars were raised by him inspite of the stay order of the
Hon’ble Court. I requested the respondent Bhupender
Kumar not to raise the construction as there is stay order
from the High Court but he did not pay any heed to my
request and raise the construction. All the respondents are
residing together being brothers. The copy of the
Jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 of the disputed land is
Ex. AW1/A. I have also clicked the photographs of the
construction which was being raised by Bhupender Kumar
on the disputed land from my mobile, which is Mark `A’,
from which it is apparent that the construction has been
raised on the disputed land. The respondents have
intentionally and willfully disobeyed the orders of the
Hon’ble Court.
CMP(M) 891 of 2022 in RS No. 46 of 2017
xxx xxx xxx Mr. O.P. Chauhan,
Advocate, for the respondents
I have filed only one contempt petition in the present
RSA. It is correct that the present RSA No. 46 of 2017,
has been filed by my father. It is correct that at that time I
did not accompany him. It is correct that I am not aware
about the contents and grounds of the appeal filed by my
father. It is correct that on 15.03.2017 and 21.06.2017
neither me nor my father was present in the Hon’ble High
Court. Self stated that we have been informed about the
stay order by our counsel. It is correct that matter
pertaining to the suit property in the present case is
regarding Will executed by Late Purshotam in favour of
respondents which was challenged by my father. It is
incorrect that Purshotam never remained owner of Khasra
No. 1658 nor he executed a Will regarding this Khasra
Number. It is correct that in Jamabandi for the year 2017-
2018 there was no mention of the ownership of
Purshotam. Self stated that in the old Jamabandi there is a
mention about the ownership of Purshotam qua this
Khasra Number. It is correct that Jamabandi for the year
2017-2018 Ex.AW1/A, is the revenue document
pertaining to the joint property of the appellants and
respondents. It is incorrect that there is no relation with the
property of Purshotam in the Jamabandi Ex. AW1/A,
regarding the Will executed by Purshotam in favour of
respondents. I came to know about the Khasra Number
from Patwari on which the construction was raised by the
CMP(M) 891 of 2022 in RS No. 46 of 2017
respondents, when I visited Patwarkhana. Patwari never
visited the spot. I have not annexed any document
prepared by the revenue agency regarding the construction
raised on Khasra No. 1658, mentioned in Ex. AW1/A. It
is incorrect that Khasra No. 1658 never remained the part
of suit property of the present litigation. It is incorrect
that I am deposing false. It is incorrect that I have filed
the present contempt petition without any basis.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
1st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) 891 of 2022 in RS No. 46 of 2017
Statement of Shri G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Without Oath
01.03.2024
Stated that I do not want to examine Smt.
Pingla Devi being repetitive in nature. I also tender in
evidence the original Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009,
Ex. AW1/B and close the evidence on behalf of the
petitioners.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
1st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) 891 of 2022 in RS No. 46 of 2017
01.03.2024
Present: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. O.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents.
Statement of Shri Padam Nabh is recorded as AW-1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vide his separate statement
close the evidence on behalf of the petitioner and tendered the
Jambandi for the year 2008-2009, which is taken on record
Ex. AW1/B.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time for
taking the steps for RWs. Let the steps be taken within
fifteen days. Thereafter process be issued for the service of
RWs, for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st March, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 6 of 2018
04.03.2024
Present: Mr. Varun Chauhan, learned vice counsel for the
plaintiff.
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for defendant No.1.
Mr. Het Ram, learned vice counsel for defendant No.2.
None for defendant No.3
As per order dated 17.11.2023, passed by Additional
Registrar (Judicial), the plaintiff was to be produced on self
responsibility for adducing his evidence today, however,
learned vice counsel for the plaintiff submits that due to
recent snowfall at Narkanda, the plaintiff could not come to
the Court today. He seeks time for plaintiff’s evidence.
The request of learned vice counsel for the plaintiff is
considered and allowed. Let the plaintiff be produced on the
next date of hearing to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1244 of 2022 In RSA
04.03.2024
Present: Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate vice Mr. Tara Singh
Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant.
None for the respondents.
As per office report, list of witness has been filed by
the learned counsel for the applicant and all the witnesses
mentioned in the list of witnesses will be produced on self
responsibility.
Let the case be listed for AWs on 08.4.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th March, 2024
(Pritam)
One sealed Parcel containing used OMR Answer
Sheets, is submitted, please.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
04.03.2024
Worthy Registrar (Vigilance/Recruitment)
It is humbly submitted that a letter dated 23 rd January,
2024, has been received from the Ld. District & Sessions Judge,
Shimla, forwarding therewith the request letter of Civil Judge-
cum-ACJM, Court No.3, Shimla, alongwith an email sent by one
of the party, namely Seema Sahai, pertaining to her Civil Suit.
In this regard, it is further submitted that no Civil Suit
pertaining to the applicant (Seema Sahai), is pending adjudication
before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh as of date
and her case i.e. Civil Suit No. 4 of 2014, which was pending
before the Hon’ble High Court has been transferred to the Lower
Court, Shimla, on account of enhancement of pecuniary
jurisdiction.
Therefore, no action/comments can be made by the
Judicial Branch. Accordingly, the matter is submitted for your
kind perusal consideration and orders.
Submitted, please.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
04.03.2024
Worthy Registrar General
COMS No. 32 of 2018
PW-1 Statement of Shri Hanish Rana S/o Shri A.C.
Rana, aged about 47 years, O/o Civil Judge
Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
04.03.2024
Stated that I am posted as Civil Ahlmad in the
Court of Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division Manali, since
2018. I have brought the summoned record Civil Suit No.
5 of 2015, titled as Kamal D Lama vs. Ram Singh. As per
the record the above said Civil Suit was filed on
01.01.2015 and the same was decided on 04.01.2024. The
certified copy of the plaint Ex.PW-1/A, and certified copy
of the replication Ex. PW-1/B, certified copy of the
application under Order IX Rule 7, CPC Ex. PW-1/C and
certified copy of the reply to the said application Ex. PW-
1/D, are same as per the original record brought by me.
xxx xxx xxx Shri B.S. Attri, Advocate, for the
defendant.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th March, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 32 of 2018
PW-2 Statement of Ms. Devi Bali, Assistant
Manager, H.P. Financial Corporation, New
Himrus Building, Circular Road, Shimla.
On Oath
04.03.2024
Stated that I am posted as Assistant Manager,
In H.P. Financial Corporation, New Himrus Building,
Circular Road, Shimla, since 2020. I have brought the
requisitioned record. As per our record, H.P. Financial
Corporation has granted the loan in favour of Shri Ram
Singh, for the purpose of constructing the Hotel, namely
Hotel Seagull, at Manali, District Kullu, H.P. Shri Ram
Singh was granted loans ( seven times) from time to time
for raising the construction of the said Hotel. Shri Ram
Singh closed/paid all the loan cases time to time and as of
date there is only one loan account, which is pending with
the H.P. Financial Corporation. Pertaining to the said
pending loan of Shri Ram Singh, recovery proceedings
were initiated by the H.P. Financial Corporation and the
said Hotel was taken over on 15.03.2019. The copy of the
recovery proceedings is Ex. PW-2/A. I have brought the
original record of the proceedings of Ex.PW-2/A. I have
also brought the certified copy of the statement of
accounts of Shri Ram Singh, which is Ex. PW-2/B. The
letter dated 04.07.2018, Ex.PW2/C-1, (three leaves) and
letter dated 25.02.2019, Ex.PW-2/C-2, have been issued
by our office to M/s Hotel Seagull and Shri Ram Singh.
COMS No. 32 of 2018
xxx xxx xxx Shri B.S. Attri, Advocate, for the
defendant.
It is correct that after taking over the possession
of the Hotel Seagull, the H.P. Financial corporation
handed over the possession of the said Hotel by Smt.
Sarita Bodh w/o Shri Ram Singh as General Power of
Attorney of Ram Singh. I do not know that Smt. Sarita
Bodh is running the Hotel as of date. Self stated that we
have not received any payment from Smt. Sarita Bodh. It
is correct that Ex.PW-2/A, has not been prepared by me.
Self stated that I have only prepared Accounts statement
i.e. Ex.PW-2/B. The taking over proceedings Ex. PW-
2/A, has been prepared by Shri M.S. Chitranta, Manager
H.P. Financial Corporation and Shri B.L. Bhardwaj of the
Corporation. Both the above said officials have retired. I
have prepared the statement of Accounts Ex.PW-2/B on
the basis of scroll/ledger sent by the Cash Section. It is
correct that I cannot tell from which date Smt. Sarita Bodh
was having possession of the said Hotel.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th March, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 32 of 2018
PW-3 Statement of Shri Vinod Kumar Chambyal,
Deputy Superintendent, Model Central Jail,
Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.
On Oath
04.03.2024
Stated that I am posted as Deputy
Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District
Sirmour, H.P., since June, 2020. I have brought the
original summoned record. As per my record accused
Ram Singh undergone the sentence in different cases at
Model Central Jail, Nahan for the total period of four
years eleven months. As per our record, Ram Singh, had
undergone the sentences from 10.11.2015 to 09.07.2019,
the details of which are mentioned in the custody
certificate Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B, has been issued
by my predecessor and I am conversant with his
signatures.
xxx xxx xxx Shri B.S. Attri, Advocate, for the
defendant.
It is correct that Ex.PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B
has not been prepared in my presence. He had undergone
the sentences in Model Central Jail Nahan under Section
138 of the Negotiable and offence under IPC, detail of
which is given in Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th March, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 32 of 2018
04.03.2024
Present: Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja
Verma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, for the defendant.
Statement of Shri Hanish Rana, Ms. Devi Bali and Shri
Vinod Chambyal, are recorded as PW-1 to PW-3,
respectively. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted
that Shri Ram Singh plaintiff is also present today. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff will be
examined at later stage. Learned counsel for the defendant
has submitted that in case the plaintiff is not examined today
before examining the witnesses, who are present today.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he will
move the appropriate application for examining the plaintiff
after the examination of witnesses of record. Let the PWs at
Sr. No. 4,5 and 6 in the list of witnesses be summoned on
taking steps within fifteen days for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2015
05.03.2024
Present: Mr. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for the
appellant.
Mr. Abhishek, Advocate, vice Ms. Rachna
Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondents No. 2,3 and 5.
As per the orders of Hon’ble Court dated
09.01.2024, the serving officer who conducted the
proclamation proceedings appeared for getting his
statement recorded with respect to the proclamation of
respondent No.6.
The statement of Shri Hari Ram, HASI (Retd.) is
recorded.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2015
Statement of Shri Hari Ram, HASI (Retd.),
S/o Shri Biria Ram R/o Village Aduwal,
P.O. Reru, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
05.03.2024
Stated that on the proclamation notice was
handed over to me by IC summon, Superintendent of
Police Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, on
01.11.2023, for affixing the same at some conspicuous
places at Shiv Colony Pinjore, Kalka, Conspicous part
of the Municipal Corporation office Panchkulla and
Kalka, and notice Board of Police Station Pinjore and
in the Court of Ld. Magistrate at Kalka Pinjore and
Nalagarh. In compliance to that I affixed the copy of
proclamation at Shiv Colony Pinjore on 07.12.2023, in
the presence of Municipal Councillor Kalka. I also
take the signature of the Muncipal Counselor after
affixing the proclamation notice at Shiv Colony. The
proclamation was also read over to the general public
present at that time in the presence of Municipal
Counselor. On the same day, i.e. on 07.12.2023, I
also affixed the copies of the proclamation in the
office of Municipal Council Panchkulla in the
presence of witnesses who also appended their
signatures on the back side of the proclamation notice.
I also affixed the copy of the proclamation notice at
police station Pinjore on 13.11.2023 in the presence of
MHC Pinjore, who also appended his signature on the
back side of the proclamation notice. I also affixed
the copy of the proclamation notice in the Courts of
Magistrate at Kalka Pinjore and Nalagarh on
20.11.20223, 21.11.2023 and 07.12.2023 in the
presence of the witnesses who appended their
signatures on the back side of the proclamation notice.
After completing the affixation at the above said
places, I send the compliance report to IC summon,
Superintendent of Police office Baddi, District Solan,
H.P.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
5th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016
PW-3 Statement of Shri Arvind Sharma, aged 54
years, Income Tax Officer, TDS, Solan,
District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
05.03.2024
Stated that I am posted as Income Tax Officer,
TDS Solan, from August, 2023. I have brought the
original summoned record. The certified copy of the
computer generated TDS deposit with respect to M/s
Andaz Resort Pvt. Ltd. TAN No. PTLA14025E, for the
financial year 2014-2015, is Ex. PW-3/A and for the year
2015-2016, Ex.PW-3/B. I have also issued the certificate
under Sectioon 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW-
3/C, regarding the authenticity of the computer generated
documents Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. The deductee of
the TDS with respect to Anand Resort is Shri Chaman Lal
having PAN No. ACHPL0159Q.
xxx xxx xxx Shri B.S. Attri, Advocate, for the
defendant.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
5th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016
05.03.2024
Present: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. P.S.
Goverdhan, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, for defendants.
Statement of Shri Arvind Sharma, is recorded as
PW-3. As per office report, PWs mentioned at Sl. No. 6
and 8, in the list of witnesses are duly served. Learned
vice counsel for the plaintiff submits that due to ill
health witness mentioned at Sl. No.8, could not come to
the Court to adduce his evidence. Shri Neeraj Sharma,
learned counsel also represented the witness mentioned
at Sl. No. 6 requested that due to some health issues, he
could not come to the Court for adducing his evidence.
Learned counsel seeks time for producing the witnesses,
who are served for today but could not come to the
Court.
The requests of the learned counsel are considered.
Let the witnesses mentioned at Sl. No. 6 and 8 be
summoned for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial). Steps, if any, be taken within fifteen
days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023 in RSA
06.03.2024
Present: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate, for the
applicant/appellant
Ms. Vandana, Advocate, vice counsel for Mr.
Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate for non-applicant/
respondent.
As per the office report the steps for summoning
the applicants’ witnesses have not been taken.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that the list of witnesses and P.F have been filed
yesterday i.e., on 5.03.2024. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that he wants to examine the
applicant only and he will be produced on self
responsibility.
Since, the applicant will be produced on self
responsibility, therefore, there is no need to issue the
summons. Let the AWs be produced on self
responsibility on 30.04.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th March, 2024
(gaurav)
COMS No. 13 of 2019
07.03.2024
Present: Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocate, vice counsel for Mr.
Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate, vice counsel for
Mr. Virender Katoch, Advocate for the defendants.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff has submit
that the plaintiff is not present today due some
unavoidable circumstances. Learned vice counsel for the
plaintiff further submits that she will produce the
plaintiff on the next date of hearing on self
responsibility.
Accordingly, let the case be listed for
plaintiffs’ evidence for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th March, 2024
(gaurav)
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2009
11.03.2024
Present: Mr. Rohit, learned vice counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, learned vice counsel
for defendant No.1.
Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Khem
Raj, Advocate, for defendant No.2.
As per the office report, defendant No.2 is required
to be produced on self responsibility for adducing his
evidence. Learned counsel for defendant No.2, submits
that defendant No.2 is not present today, however, he
will be produced on the next date of hearing on self
responsibility.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of
defendant No.2, evidence, who will be produced on self
responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
PW-5 Statement of Ms. Sumna Kumari, aged aboute
31 years, Patwari, Patwar Circle Ner, Tehsil
Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
11.03.2024
Stated that I am posted as Patwari at Patwar
Circle Ner, Tehsil Balh, District from the last two years. I
have brought the original revenue record. As per original
revenue record Jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 and
notes/mutations at Sl. No. 1 to 3 in the said Jamabandi are
as per the original record, which I have brought today. The
copy of the said Jamabandi is Ex. PW-5/A. Original seen
and returned.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan,
Advocate for the defendants.
The Mutation No. 4937 is attested by the
Tehsildar on 03.02.2023 and the mutation No. 4954 was
also attested by the Tehsildar on 01.02.2023. The said
mutations were attested by the Tehsildar on the
application dated 08.10.2020, filed by the Bank. It is
correct that as per the record the share pertaining to one of
the co-sharer, namely Shri Bharat Kumar is still
mortgaged with the Canera Bank as of date. I have not
brought the application pertaining to the mutation No.
4954, since the same has not been requisitioned. It is
correct that the share pertaining to one of the co-sharer
was mortgage with Central Bank of India, Gutkar Branch,
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
District Mandi. Self stated that the same has been re-
deemed vide mutation No. 4954.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
PW-4 Statement of Mr. Tashi, aged 35 years, S/o Shri
Tandup Gyacho, R/o Village Surad, P.O.
Khokhan, Tehsil Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P.
The witness was deferred on 29.05.2023, and
his examination is resumed.
On Oath
11.03.2024
Stated that I have brought the abstract of the
Account Ledger Inquiry relating to Ashok Kumar
(Housing Loan) today. The said housing loan was closed
by Shri Ashok Kumar on 08.10.2020. The certified copy
of the Account Ledger Inquiry of Shri Ashok Kumar is
Ex. PW-4/A. The certificate under Bankers Book
Evidence Act is Ex.PW4/B.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan,
Advocate for the defendants.
I am Branch Manager of the Indian Overseas
Bank Branch at Ner. I am duly responsible for
maintaining the record of the Branch. It is correct that
Shri Parkash Chand remained Branch Manager of the
above said Branch. I am not aware the period during
which Shri Parkash Chand was Branch Manager of Ner
Branch. I am not aware about the certificate (Mark D-2),
issued by the then Branch Manager. Shri Ashok Kumar
was posted as Manager during the year 2018 in our
Branch.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2020
Statement of Shri George, learned counsel for
the plaintiff.
Without Oath
11.03.2024
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of
the plaintiff since the list of witnesses has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2009
11.03.2024
Present: Mr. George, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
defendants.
Statement of Shri Tashi is resumed today and is
recorded as PW-4. Statement of Ms. Sumna Kumari, is
recorded as PW-5. Vide separate statement, Shri
George, learned counsel for the plaintiff has closed the
evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, now the case be listed before
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of
defendants evidence. Steps, if any, be taken within
fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9395 of 2018 in RSA No. 112 of 2018
12.03.2024
Present: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
applicants/appellants.
Mr. Kiran Kumar Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr.
Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondents.
As per the office report, RWs mentioned at Sl. No.
3 and 4 are duly served, however, witness mentioned at
Sl. No. 5 has refused to take the notice on account of his
ill health. Learned vice counsel for the respondents has
placed on record the prescription slip of witness Ishwar
Dass Dogra (RW) mentioned at Sl. No. 4 and Atul
Sharma, (RW) mentioned at Sl. No. 3. The prescription
slips are taken on record. However, the witness
mentioned at Sl. No. 5 has again refuse to take the
summon.
The perusal of the earlier order dated
19.10.2023, depicts that on the earlier occasion also the
witness at Sl. No. 4 has shown his inability to come to
the Court due to his ill health and witness mentioned at
Sl. No. 5 has refused to take the summon. From the
conduct of the witnesses it appears that they are not
coming to the Court without any basis.
Learned vice counsel for the respondents
has submitted that he will inform personally to these
witnesses to come to the Court for adducing their
evidences on the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, let fresh summons be issued
for the service of witnesses mentioned at Sl. No. 3,4 and
CMP No. 9395 of 2018 in RSA No. 112 of 2018
5 for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial). Steps, be taken within fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 40 of 2009
12.03.2024
Present: Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.S.
Bhogal, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Vedhant Ranta, Advocate, for the respondent.
The witness, Dr. Namita Sharma, PGIMER,
Chandigarh is examined through Video Conferencing as
AW-1. The witness has been duly identified by Ms.
Geetika Dudeja, Coordinator PGIMER Chandigarh at
remote end. List of witnesses filed by the applicant is
exhausted. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
submits that he will move appropriate application for
secondary evidence before the Hon’ble Court.
Since the list of witness filed by the applicant is
exhausted, accordingly, AWs are closed. At this stage,
the respondents does not want to lead any evidence on
behalf of the respondents. Section Officer concerned is
directed to send a copy of the statement to the
witness at her address at the earliest, so that the
witness will send it back to the Court after signing
her statement.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 40 of 2009
AW-1 Statement of Dr. Namita Sharma, aged 30
years, presently working as Senior Resident,
Department of Psychiatry, at PGIMER,
Chandigarh.
On Oath
12.03.2024
Stated that I am working as Senior Resident,
Department of Psychiatry at PGIMER, Chandigarh. I
have not been able to trace the record pertaining to the
admission and treatment of the patient, Shri Surinder
Saroop as the same has been destroyed, as per policy of
PGIMER, Chandigarh. The Circular dated 20.06.2013,
Ex. AW-1/A and office order dated 12.06.2018, along
with list of destroyed files (three leaves) Ex.AW-1/B,
have already been submitted by me through email. I have
not annexed any certificate regarding destruction of files
of the patient Shri Surinder Swaroop, however, I have
placed on record through email the list of destructed files
in which the file of Shri Surinder Saroop has been
mentioned at Serial Number 147. I am not aware the date
on which the file of Shri Surinder Saroop has been
destroyed.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vedhant Ranta,
Advocate, for the respondent.
As per my knowledge and the information
gathered from the Administration Department PGIMER,
Chandigarh, the Circular Ex. AW-1/A and Office Order
Ex.AW-1/B, are the only Circulars by which the files of
Arb. Case No. 40 of 2009
the indoor patient are being destroyed. Self stated that I
am not certain whether there is any other Circular or office
order have been issued pertaining to this fact by the
PGIMER Administration Chandigarh.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
12th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 77 of 2016
13.03.2024
Present: Mr. Vikas Deep and Ms. Nidhi Jain, Advocates,
for the plaintiff.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet
Pal Singh Jaswal and Mr. Vedhant Ranta,
Advocates, for the defendant.
The plaintiff Shri Pavel Garg is present today for
adducing his evidence today. However, learned Senior
Counsel for the defendant submits that he wants to
confront the plaintiff with certain documents and the
same are not available with him today. Therefore,
learned Senior Counsel seeks adjournment.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has further
submitted that there are three Civil Suits of similar
nature and the point of controversy in the said Civil Suits
is almost similar and the parties these Suits are same.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that he
will move an appropriate application before the Hon’ble
Court for consolidation of the cases as the evidence in all
these Suits, required to be led by the plaintiff is similar.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court after the appropriate application will be
filed by the plaintiff for consolidation of the cases i.e.
Civil Suit Nos. 77, 78 and 79 of 2016.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 78 of 2016
13.03.2024
Present: Mr. Vikas Deep and Ms. Nidhi Jain, Advocates,
for the plaintiff.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet
Pal Singh Jaswal and Mr. Vedhant Ranta,
Advocates, for the defendant.
The plaintiff Shri Pavel Garg is present today for
adducing his evidence today. However, learned Senior
Counsel for the defendant submits that he wants to
confront the plaintiff with certain documents and the
same are not available with him today. Therefore,
learned Senior Counsel seeks adjournment.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has further
submitted that there are three Civil Suits of similar
nature and the point of controversy in the said Civil Suits
is almost similar and the parties these Suits are same.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that he
will move an appropriate application before the Hon’ble
Court for consolidation of the cases as the evidence in all
these Suits, required to be led by the plaintiff is similar.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court after the appropriate application will be
filed by the plaintiff for consolidation of the cases i.e.
Civil Suit Nos. 77, 78 and 79 of 2016.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 79 of 2016
13.03.2024
Present: Mr. Vikas Deep and Ms. Nidhi Jain, Advocates,
for the plaintiff.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet
Pal Singh Jaswal and Mr. Vedhant Ranta,
Advocates, for the defendant.
The plaintiff Shri Pavel Garg is present today for
adducing his evidence today. However, learned Senior
Counsel for the defendant submits that he wants to
confront the plaintiff with certain documents and the
same are not available with him today. Therefore,
learned Senior Counsel seeks adjournment.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has further
submitted that there are three Civil Suits of similar
nature and the point of controversy in the said Civil Suits
is almost similar and the parties these Suits are same.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that he
will move an appropriate application before the Hon’ble
Court for consolidation of the cases as the evidence in all
these Suits, required to be led by the plaintiff is similar.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court after the appropriate application will be
filed by the plaintiff for consolidation of the cases i.e.
Civil Suit Nos. 77, 78 and 79 of 2016.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 80 of 2010
PW-14 Statement of Shri Vinay Kumar, S/o Late
Parma Nand, aged 58 years, presently working
as Superintendent in the office of Central GST
Commissionerate, Chotta Shimla-171 002.
On Oath
14.03.2024
Stated that I am working as Superintendent in
the office of Central GST Commissionerate, Chotta
Shimla from the last five years. I have brought the
requisitioned record. The Leave License Agreement Ex.
PW-12/A, is true and correct as per official record. I
have also brought the recommendation of the higher rate
increase by CPWD, Mark-A, now Ex. PW-14/A.
Objected to on the mode of proof.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. YP Sood, Advocate for the
defendant
It is correct that Ex. PW-14/A, has never been
dealt with by me nor I have appended my signature on the
said document. Self stated that I have brought the original
official record. I am not conversant with the signatures or
the name of the official, who has appended their
signatures on Ex. PW-14/A. Self stated that I am
conversant with the signatures of Shamsher Saini, under
Red Circle B, who was working Tax Assistant in our
office at that relevant time.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 80 of 2010
PW-15 Statement of Ms. Sonia Thakur, D/o Shri
Durga Charan Singh, aged about 45 years,
presently working as Secretary, H.P. State
Information Commission, Shimla.
On Oath
14.03.2024
Stated that I am working as Secretary in the
Office of H.P. State Information Commission, since April
2022. I have brought the requisitioned original record.
As per our record, the rent invoice Ex.PW-15/A, is true
and correct. I have also brought the photocopy of the
agreement dated 01.04.2017, between Parmod Sood and
Himachal Pradesh State Information Commission, copy of
which is Mark-C.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. YP Sood, Advocate for the
defendant
The original agreement Mark-C, is not
available in our official record.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 80 of 2010
Statement of Mr. Dhananjay Sharma,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Without Oath
14.03.2024
Stated that I give up PW Dev Dhir, mentioned
at Sl. No. 1 in the list of witness being repetitive in nature.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 80 of 2010
14.03.2024
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Dhananjai Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for defendants No. 1 and
2.
None for defendant No.3.
Statement of Shri Vinay Kumar and Ms. Sonia
Thakur, are recorded as PW-14 and PW-15, respectively.
Shri Dhananjay Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff
vide his separate statement has given up Shri Dev Dhir
witness mentioned at Sl. No.1, in the list of witnesses.
The plaintiff and witness Shri B.C. Sharma, are
also present but learned counsel for the defendants
submits that due to some unavoidable reason, he is not
able to cross examine the witness Shri B.C. Sharma and
plaintiff today. Learned counsel for the defendants
further requested that the remaining witnesses may be
examined on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel
for the plaintiff has no objection to the request of learned
counsel for the defendants. Accordingly, the other
witnesses present today are discharged for today.
Let the plaintiff and the witness Shri B.C. Sharma
be produced on self responsibility on the next date of
hearing. List on 13.05.2024, for remaining PWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th March, 2024
(Pritam)
RSA No. 549 of 2009
15.03.2024
Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the
appellant/applicant
Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondents/non-applicant No. 1,2 and 4.
Respondents No. 3 (A) to 3(c) already ex-parte.
Applicant, Shri Sarwan Kumar is present today.
However, learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1,2 and
4 submits that due to inadvertence he has not marked the
case and, therefore, he has not contacted his client and
seeks adjournment for today. The request of learned
counsel for the non-applicant is not opposed by the
applicant/appellant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned
for today.
Let the case be listed before Additional Registrar
(Judicial) for fixing the date of remaining AWs on self
responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15th March, 2024
(Pritam)
That by this email, the petitioner wants to get to bring
into the notice the high volume of illegal Slate mining
happening in the areas around Dharamshala, i.e.
Khaniyara, Lungta and Salate Godown which is
impacting the fragile Himalayas and eco-system. As per
the petitioner, he had a chance to track at the area around
Lungta Camps in Khaniyara, whereby he was surprised
to notice the level of the Slate mining going on in this
area.
The complete area has been ruined by the heavy
explosive and equipment used by the people to bring
down the mountains for getting the Slate. As per the
petitioner, there is a very beautiful river, which is visible
near to the Power Project and thereafter it is lost in the
ruins and debris/rocks left from the mining. During the
petitioner’s visit heard three loud explosion due to which
a big chunk of mountain fell down. A group of people
after every 20 meters were found to be busy in bringing
down the mighty mountain and extracting Slates. The
illegal mining is resulting in de-forestation and damage
to the Himalaya at unpresidented scale and this activity
is going for the years un-checked. Further, where this
activity is going on is forest area.
That the negligence of the local administration and un-
checked illegal mining activities is posing a risk to the
beauty of the Himalayas which could change the
demographic structure and may result a calamity at any
time.
Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 a/w Counter Claim No. 108 of 2021
18.03.2024
Present: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff in
Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 and defendant/Counter
Claimant in Civil Suit No. 108 of 2021..
Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Sunil
Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the defendant in Civil
Suit No. 95 of 2020n and for the plaintiff/counter
claimant in Civil Suit No. 108 of 2021.
The plaintiff (Yash Pal) and witness Shri Ramesh
Kanwar, are present today. However, learned vice
counsel for the defendants/counter claimants submits
that their names have not been reflected in the Cause
List, therefore, they could not ascertain that the case has
been listed today for plaintiff’s evidence as they have not
brought the case file today. Learned vice counsel for the
defendants seeks adjournment on this ground.
The prayer of the learned vice counsel is genuine,
accordingly, recording of plaintiff’s evidence is
adjourned for today.
The Dealing Assistant concerned is directed to
reflect the name of the learned counsel for the
defendants/Counter Claimants in the Cause List in
future. Moreover, the defendants have also filed counter
claim, which has been registered as Civil Suit No. 108 of
2021 and the same has also not been reflected in the
Cause List. The perusal of issues framed by the Hon’ble
Court, shows that there will be common evidence in both
the Civil Suits, therefore, the Dealing Assistant
concerned is further directed to reflect the Counter
Claim/Civil Suit No. 108 of 2021, in the Cause List in
future.
Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 a/w Counter Claim No. 108 of 2021
Accordingly, the witnesses, who are present today
are discharged. Let the plaintiff be produced on self
responsibility for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 100 of 2022
19.03.2024 Present:-
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for the
petitioner.
Shri T.S. Bhogal, Advocate alongwith Shri
Bhagat Singh Negi (respondent is present)In compliance to the order dated 04.01.2024,
the respondent Shri Bhagat Singh Negi, has furnished the
security bond whereby he has specifically undertook that in
the event the petitioner succeeds in the matter, he shall
deposit the amount released in his favour alongwith interest
accured thereon in the Registry of this Hon’ble Court.
Alongwith the Security bond the respondent has furnished
the certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 2018-2019, in
which a note has been appended by the Patwari that vide
Mutation No. 963, a report has been made by the Patwari
that Shri Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Padam Chand is co-sharer to
the extent of 1/3rd share in the property inherited from his
father and the average value of his share is approximately
91,81,580/- and the said share of the respondent is free from
all encumbrances.
Accordingly, the security bond is accepted by
me. Be processed further in compliance to the order dated
04.01.2024 of the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th March, 2024
(Pritam)
RSA No. 223 of 2014
19.03.2024 Present:-
Shri Gautam Sood with Shri Rohit, Advocates,
for the appeallants.
Shri Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Virender Thakur, Advocate, for respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
inadvertently they have not placed on record the documents
intended to be proved by the witness Shri Nishant Thakur,
Criminal Ahlmad, Senior Civil Judge-cum-CJM Court,
Chamba, District Chamba. Learned counsel for the
appellants further submits that he will move an appropriate
application for placing on record the documents in
accordance with law.
Accordingly, the witness namely Shri Nishant
Thakur, Criminal Ahlmad, CJM Court Chamba is discharged
for today. Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court
after the application is filed by the appellants.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Company Pet. No. 17 of 2014
20.03.2024 Present:-
Shri Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Drishti Sirswal, Advocate, vice Mr.
Balwant Kukreja, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate
General for the State-respondent No.2.
None for respondents No. 3 to 73.
As per office report, proclamation charges
for the sale of property have been deposited by the
petitioner. Let the warrant of sale be issued as per the
following schedule:-
1. Date of Proclamation (for both the properties
situated at Solan-Parwanoo and Jallandhar)
-10.04.2024
2. Sale of property (at Solan-Parwanoo) -10.05.2024
2. Sale of property (at Jallandhar) -20.05.2024
3. Report -10.06.2024
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 10766 of 2022 in RSA No. 605 of 2005
21.03.2024 Present:-
Shri Abhishek, Advocate, vice Ms. Rachna
Kuthiala, Advocate, for the applicant.
None for respondents.
As per office report, steps i.e. PF, list of
witnesses and road and diet money have not been
deposited. Learned vice counsel for the applicant-
appellant seeks time for doing the needful.
Let steps be taken within fifteen days,
thereafter the process be issued for the service of AWs
returnable for 23.05.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1684 of 2022 in RSAAW-1 Statement of Shri Pankaj Pandit, Deputy
Manager (General/Legal), Himachal Pradesh
General Industries Corporation Ltd., aged 37
years, Himrus Building near Hotel Himland,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
21.03.2024
Stated that I am working as Deputy General
Manager, at HPGIC, Shimla since 2017. I have been duly
authorized to adduce evidence on behalf of HPGIC by the
Managing Director, the copy of authority letter is Ex.
AW-1/A. The Corporation had filed the first appeal
before the Lower Appellate Court and the same was
decided by the Court of Additional District Judge-I,
Shimla on 31.12.2021. The Corporation/applicant came to
know about the said decision when the Corporation
received notice dated 28.07.2022 in Execution Petition
No. 55 of 2022. After receiving the notice in the
Execution Petition the Corporation wrote a letter dated
03.08.2022 to Shri Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, who was
appearing as Standing Counsel for the Corporation in the
said appeal regarding to know about the status of the said
appeal. We did not receive any correspondence from our
Standing Counsel thereafter the applicant again wrote a
letter dated 27.08.2022, to our Standing Counsel. Since
even after the reminder to our counsel we did not get any
reply, therefore, I personally visited Lower Court and
applied the certified copy of the judgment of the Lower
Appellant Court on 01.09.2022, which was received by me
on 08.09.2022. Thereafter we consulted our Advocate at
CMP(M) No. 1684 of 2022 in RSA
High Court and on 16.12.2022, the applicant-appellant
filed the present Regular Second Appeal in the High
Court. There is no intentional or willful delay on the part
of the applicant as the applicant came to know about the
decision of First Appellate Court only after receipt of
notice in the Execution petition.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
It is correct that Shri Rakesh Prajapati is not
Managing Director of the HPGIC at present. Self stated
that Shri Ashutosh Garg is Managing Director of the
HPGIC as of date. Shri Ashutosh Garg has joined as
Managing Director in the month of February, 20224. It is
correct that Ex.AW-1/A has not been issued by the present
Managing Director. It is correct that the letters written to
the Standing Counsel has not been annexed on the record
at the time of the filing of the appeal. Self stated that I
have brought the original letter today. I am not aware that
whenever a certified copy is applied the name of the
applicant is reflected in the certified copy. It is incorrect
that the Corporation was well aware about the decision of
the First Appeallate Court. It is incorrect that the
Corporation has intentionally and willfully not filed the
appeal in time. It is incorrect that there is delay and
latches on the part of the Corporation.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1714 of 2022 in RSA
AW-1 Statement of Shri Pankaj Pandit, Deputy
Manager (General/Legal), Himachal Pradesh
General Industries Corporation Ltd., aged 37
years, Himrus Building near Hotel Himland,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
21.03.2024
Stated that I am working as Deputy General
Manager, at HPGIC, Shimla since 2017. I have been duly
authorized to adduce evidence on behalf of HPGIC by the
Managing Director, the copy of authority letter is Ex.
AW-1/A. The Corporation had filed the first appeal
before the Lower Appellate Court and the same was
decided by the Court of Additional District Judge-I,
Shimla on 31.12.2021. The Corporation/applicant came to
know about the said decision when the Corporation
received notice dated 28.07.2022 in Execution Petition
No. 55 of 2022. After receiving the notice in the
Execution Petition the Corporation wrote a letter dated
03.08.2022 to Shri Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, who was
appearing as Standing Counsel for the Corporation in the
said appeal regarding to know about the status of the said
appeal. We did not receive any correspondence from our
Standing Counsel thereafter the applicant again wrote a
letter dated 27.08.2022, to our Standing Counsel. Since
even after the reminder to our counsel we did not get any
reply, therefore, I personally visited Lower Court and
applied the certified copy of the judgment of the Lower
Appellant Court on 01.09.2022, which was received by me
on 08.09.2022. Thereafter we consulted our Advocate at
CMP(M) No. 1714 of 2022 in RSA
High Court and on 16.12.2022, the applicant-appellant
filed the present Regular Second Appeal in the High
Court. There is no intentional or willful delay on the part
of the applicant as the applicant came to know about the
decision of First Appellate Court only after receipt of
notice in the Execution petition.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
It is correct that Shri Rakesh Prajapati is not
Managing Director of the HPGIC at present. Self stated
that Shri Ashutosh Garg is Managing Director of the
HPGIC as of date. Shri Ashutosh Garg has joined as
Managing Director in the month of February, 20224. It is
correct that Ex.AW-1/A has not been issued by the present
Managing Director. It is correct that the letters written to
the Standing Counsel has not been annexed on the record
at the time of the filing of the appeal. Self stated that I
have brought the original letter today. I am not aware that
whenever a certified copy is applied the name of the
applicant is reflected in the certified copy. It is incorrect
that the Corporation was well aware about the decision of
the First Appeallate Court. It is incorrect that the
Corporation has intentionally and willfully not filed the
appeal in time. It is incorrect that there is delay and
latches on the part of the Corporation.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1684 of 2022 in RSA
Statement of Shri Vikas Chauhan, Advocate,
for the applicant.
Without Oath
21.03.2024
I close the evidence since the list of witnesses
is exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1714 of 2022 in RSA
Statement of Shri Vikas Chauhan, Advocate,
for the applicant.
Without Oath
21.03.2024
I close the evidence since the list of witnesses
is exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1684 of 2022 in RSA
Statement of Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for
the respondent.
Without Oath
21.03.2024
The respondent does not want to lead any
evidence.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1714 of 2022 in RSA
Statement of Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for
the respondent.
Without Oath
21.03.2024
The respondent does not want to lead any
evidence.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
21st March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1684 of 2022 in RSA
21.03.2024 Present:-
Shri Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Statement of Shri Pankaj Pandit, Deputy
Manager HPGIC, Shimla is recorded as AW-1.
Learned counsel for the applicant vide his separate
statement close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant. Further, learned counsel for the respondent
vide his separate statement stated that he does not want
to lead any evidence on behalf of the respondent in the
present application.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate order.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1714 of 2022 in RSA21.03.2024 Present:-
Shri Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Statement of Shri Pankaj Pandit, Deputy
Manager HPGIC, Shimla is recorded as AW-1.
Learned counsel for the applicant vide his separate
statement close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant. Further, learned counsel for the respondent
vide his separate statement stated that he does not want
to lead any evidence on behalf of the respondent in the
present application.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate order.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21th March, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 19 of 2019 a/w Counter Claim No. 77 of 2019
22.03.2024 Present:-
Shri Manish Banolta Advocate, vice Shri
Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the
plaintiff-non-counter claimant.
Shri Navneet Kumar Bhalla, Advocate, for the
defendants-Counter claimants.
As per previous order, the plaintiff was
required to be produced on self responsibility.
However, learned vice counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the plaintiff could not come to the Court
today for adducing his evidence due to some un-
avoidable reasons. Learned vice counsel further
submits that the plaintiff will be produced on self
responsibility on the next date of hearing and he
seeks adjournment for today.
The request of learned vice counsel for the
plaintiff has not been opposed by the learned counsel
for the defendant. Accordingly, the matter is
adjourned for today.
Let the plaintiff be produced for his evidence
on self responsibility for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd March, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 11 of 201926.03.2024 Present:-
Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms. Shalini
Thakur, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Sumit Sharma, Advocate and defendant No.1,
(Shri Ramesh Chand in person).
Vide order dated 08.12.2023, the
Hon’ble court has fixed the date of remaining
plaintiffs evidence for 23.03.2024 but the matter
could not be taken up being Saturday (non-working
day).
Accordingly, the case was taken up
today. Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff submits
that the remaining plaintiffs witness have to come
from Pathankot and they have not come today.
Learned vice counsel seeks adjournment for today.
Let the remaining plaintiffs witnesses be
produced on self responsibility for the date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1315 of 2022 in RSA No. 104 of 2021
AW-1 Statement of Ms. Parul Kapoor, Civil Ahlmad,
office of Civil Judge Senior Division, Court
No.1, Paonta, Sahib, District Sirmaur,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
26.03.2024
Stated that I have brought the original
summoned record. The record pertains to the application
under Order 39 Rule 2-A, of CPC. The said application
has been filed by Mohinder Singh against Shri Baksheesh
Singh S/o Shri Tara Singh Harmail Singh, Baldev Singh,
Shamsher Singh all sons of Shri Baksheesh Singh. The
said application was registered as C.M.A. No. 50/6/2015
on 20.03.2015. The CIS Number of the said CMA is
72/2015. Ex. AW-1/A, is true and correct as per the
original record. The reply to the said CMA is Ex.AW-
1/B, which is true and correct as per the original record.
The said CMA has been decided by the Ld. Senior Civil
Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, on 31.08.2023 (original
seen and returned).
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate for
the respondents.
It is correct that as per record the above said
CMA has been dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2023.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
26th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1315 of 2022 in RSA No. 104 of 2021
AW-2 Statement of Additional SHO Shri Jeet Ram,
Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmour,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
26.03.2024
Stated that I have brought the original
summoned record. Ex. AW-2/A, is true and correct as
per the original record. The GD entry No. 17, dated
18.04.2021 (Ex.AW-2/A), was made by Shri Mohinder
Singh on 18.04.2021. There is no record in the Police
Station Puruwala regarding any application made by the
applicant (Mohinder Singh) on 01.05.2022. On the
complaint of the applicant the investigation was made by
the police for which GD No. 17 dated 18.04.2021, was
entered. Applicant Mohinder Singh again made a
complaint for which GD entry No.14, dated 20.08.2023,
was entered at Police Station Puruwala. Head Constable
Ravinder Kumar went to the spot for investigation
regarding GD entry No. 14, dated 20.08.2023 and
thereafter made a reference of the conclusion of
investigation in GD entry No. 14, dated 20.08.2023.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate for
the respondents.
The investigation pertaining to GD entry No.
17 dated 18.04.2021, was conducted by ASI Inder Singh.
I have never visited the spot and carried any investigation
personally. Since I have never visited the spot, therefore, I
cannot say whether any construction was carried out or not
CMP(M) No. 1315 of 2022 in RSA No. 104 of 2021
on the spot. It is correct that record pertaining to GD entry
No. 14, dated 20.08.2023, was not summoned for today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
26th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1315 of 2022 in RSA No. 104 of 2021
26.03.2024 Present:-
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Statement of Ms. Parul Kapoor and
Addition SHO Shri Jeet Ram, are recorded as AW-1
and AW-2. Let the applicant/appellant be produced
on self responsibility for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1532/2019 in RFA
& CMP No. 1533 of 2019 in RFA
27.03.2024 Present:-
Shri P.K. Verma, vice counsel for the
applicants.
Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate
General for respondent No.1.
Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
As per office report, diet money amounting to
Rs.8,000/- and the list of witnesses have been filed
by respondent No.2 in both the CMPs. Learned
Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 seeks
some time for taking the steps.
Let the steps i.e. PF, diet money and list of
witnesses, if any, be filed within fifteen days,
thereafter the process be issued for the service of
RWs for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Election Petition No. 1 of 202327.03.2024 Present:-
Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Arun Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
Respondents No. 2 to 4 already ex-parte.
Respondent No.5 already deleted vide order
dated 11.10.2023 of the Hon’ble Court.
Let the case be listed on 30.04.2024 for
admission and denial of the documents of the parties
before the undersigned .
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 3780 of 2024 in FAO (FC) No. 24 of 2023Statement of Shri Sanjeev Bagga, S/o Shri
Kamal Kumar Bagga aged 52 years, R/o House
No. 171, Ward No.1, Krishna Nagar,
Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
27.03.2024
Stated that I have entered into compromise with
Smt. Bindiya Bagga and as per the compromise I have
paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs only) to
Smt. Bindiya Bagga, in view of the compromise arrived at
between us. We have also agreed to take the divorce
from each other in accordance with law. I have entered
into the compromise/settlement without any coercion,
threat or undue influence. I have appended my signature
at my own volition on the compromise dated 11.11.2023
(Annexure A-1, annexed with the application). In terms of
the settlement arrived at between us, the present appeal
may be decided.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 3780 of 2024 in FAO (FC) No. 24 of 2023
Statement of Smt. Bindiya Bagga, D/o Shri
Rajinder Pal Verma, aged 46 years, R/o Partap
Kali, Ward No. 5, House No. 153, Hamirpur,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
27.03.2024
Stated that I have entered into compromise with
Smt. Sanjeev Bagga and as per the compromise I have
received Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs only) as full and
final amount from Shri Sanjeev Bagga. In view of the
compromise arrived at between us, we have also agreed to
take the divorce from each other in accordance with law. I
have entered into the compromise/settlement without any
coercion, threat or undue influence. I have appended my
signature at my own volition on the compromise dated
11.11.2023 (Annexure A-1, annexed with the application).
In terms of the settlement arrived at between us, the
present appeal may be decided.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
27th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 3780 of 2024 in FAO (FC) No. 24 of 2023
27.03.2024 Present:-
Mr. H.R. Hidhu, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Ramesh Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr.
Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent.
In compliance to the order dated 21.03.2024 of
the Hon’ble Court the statement of the parties are
recorded qua the settlement entered between the
parties. The parties have been duly identified by
their respective counsel.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Court
for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th March, 2024
(Pritam)Note: Court Master is requested to place the recorded
statements before the Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of
the matter.
Arb. Case No. 15 of 2023
28.03.2024 Present:-
Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate
General, for the petitionersMr. Tarun Jeet Singh Bhoga and Ms. Swati
Verma, Advocates, for the respondents.
As per office report in terms of the order dated
11.01.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Court in OMP
No. 653 of 2023, the Bank Guarantee No.
0992624BG0000010, dated 20.01.2024, from State
Bank of India, SPL COMM Branch SCO-103-106,
Sector-17B, Chandigarh has been furnished by the
respondents.
Let the verification of the said Bank Guarantee
be made from the concerned Bank and thereafter the
matter be listed again for further order.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 in RSA
AW-1 Statement of Shri Raj Kumar S/o Shri Ishwar
Dass, aged about 39 years, R/o Village
Padyarkahar, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
28.03.2024
Stated that Shri Joginder Pal had filed a Civil
Suit No.75/01/2011 against me for the recovery of amount
which has been dismissed by the trial Court on
13.07.2018. Thereafter, Joginder Pal had filed an appeal
bearing No. 84-13 of 2018, before the First Appellate
Court and the same was allowed by the first Appellate
Court on 22.11.2019. Thereafter, I contacted Shri Gulzar
Rathore, Advocate, in the High Court for filing the appeal
on 02.01.2020. My Advocate asked me to come to Shimla
in the month of March, 2020. When in the month of
March 2020 I visited Shimla then I came to know that Shri
Gulzar Rathore, Advocate is not well and he is not coming
to his Chambers or Court. Thereafter I went back to my
village. Thereafter, due to COVI19 pandemic in the moth
of March, 2020, I could not come to Shimla due to the
restrictions. Thereafter, I again visited Shimla in the
month of March, 2021, and inquired about Shri Gulzar
Rathore Advocate then I came to know from his Chamber
Mate/colleague that Shri Gulzar Rathore, Advocate had
expired. In between March, 2020 to March 2021, I
telephonically tried to contact Shri Gulzar Rathore,
Advocate he was not picking up the phone. However, I
talk to Shri Sunil, Advocate who was working with Shri
CMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 in RSA
Gulzar Rathore. I inquired about my file from Shri Sunil
but my file could not be traced in the office of Shri Gulzar
Rathore. Thereafter, I again applied for the certified
copies of the judgments of the trial and the first appellate
Court. On receiving the certified copies of the judgments
of the Courts below, I again contact the present Advocate
at Shimla and he filed the appeal in the Hon’ble High
Court on 22.09.2022. The delay, if any, is neither
intentional nor willful but due to the aforesaid reasons.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Surinder Saklani,
Advocate for the respondents.
After the decision of the first appellant Court at
Ghumarwin my Advocate applied for the certified copy of
the judgment. I do not remember when the same was
applied by my counsel at Ghumarwin. My counsel at
Ghumarwin handed over me the copy of the judgment of
the first appellant Court on 01.01.2020. I handed over the
entire case file to Shri Gulzar Rathore, Advocate on
02.01.2020. Self stated that Shri Gulzar Rathore,
Advocate advised me to come in the month of March,
2020. I am not aware about the limitation period of the
appeal in the High Court. I did not inquire from my
Advocate regarding the limitation period for filing of the
appeal in the High Court. The COVID19 restrictions were
laid by the Government in the year 2021. I do not know
that during COVID restrictions the Courts were still
functioning. Self stated that I visited during COVID
period also. I do not know that Shri Joginder Pal had filed
the Execution Petition before the trial Court. It is correct
CMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 in RSA
that in the Execution Petition my property has been
ordered to be attached by the Court. I did not appear
before the trial Court in that Execution Petition. Again
stated that whenever the Execution Petition was listed
before the Court I use visit the Court on that day. I do not
know that my Advocate had filed an application for setting
aside the ex-parte order in the Execution Petition. It is
correct that I use to visit Ghumarwin Court on the date
whenever the Execution Petition is listed in the Court. It
is incorrect that I have intentionally not filed the appeal in
the High Court well in time. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
28th March, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 in RSA
28.03.2024 Present:-
Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Statement of Shri Raj Kumar (applicant) is
recorded as Aw-1. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the other witness is not present today
for adducing his evidence today due to ill health of
his mother. Learned counsel further submits that he
will bring that witness on self responsibility on the
next date of hearing.
Let the case be listed for remaining AWs for
the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th March, 2024
(Pritam)
RSA No. 237 of 202101.04.2024 Present:-
Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, for appellant No.1.
Applicant No.2 is stated to have been expired.
Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
Witness/applicant Shri Krishan Chand is
present. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
he had moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3
read with Section 151 of CPC for brining on record
legal representative of applicant No.2 (Belu Ram).
Learned counsel further submits that the issues
framed by the Hon’ble Court does not appear to be
in consonance with the pleadings on the application
under Order 22 Rule 3, CPC. Therefore, learned
counsel submits that he will move an appropriate
application for reframing of the issues. Accordingly,
the witness /applicant present today is discharged.
Let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble
Court after filing the appropriate application by the
applicant.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021AW-1 Statement of Ms. Maya Devi, Panchayat
Secretary Gram Panchayat Jahu, aged about 57
years, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
01.04.2024
Stated that I have brought the death certificate.
As per the death certificate Shri Ram Krishan, had died
on 09.04.2021. The death certificate has been produced
in the Gram Panchayat Officer by the LRs of deceased
Ram Krishan. The death certificate has been issued by
BMO CH Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, which is Ex. AW-
1/A. I am working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram
Panchayt Jahu since 2016. The Panchayat Secretaries of
the Gram Panchayat in the State of Himachal Pradesh
remained on strike from 29th July, 2023 to 10th September,
2023. I was also part of the strike during that period.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021
AW-2 Statement of Dr. Prithi Chaudhary, aged about
38 years, CH Bhoranj, District Hamirpur,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
01.04.2024
Stated that I am working as Medical Officer at
CH Bhoranj, since January, 2014. I have brought the
medical record pertaining to Shri Ram Krishan. As per
the record Shri Ram Krishan S/o Late Shri Ghanaiya was
admitted at CH Bhoranj on 09.04.2021 at 9.30 p.m., and
within fifteen minutes he stopped breathing and died. I
personally attended him at CH Bhoranj, when he was
brought to the hospital. Death certificate Ex. AW-1/ A,
was issued by the Block Development Officer Bhoranj,
since the death of the patient Ram Krishan had occurred in
the hospital.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021
02.04.2024 Present:-
Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Sumit, Advocate, for the applicants.
Shri Athrav Sharma, Advocate, for respondents
No. 1 to 3.
None for respondent No.8.
Statement of Ms. Maya Devi and Dr. Prithi are
recorded as AW-1 and Aw-2, respectively. As per
the office report, Halqa Patwari, Patwar Circle Jahu,
is duly served but not present today. Accordingly,
notice under Order XV1 Rule XII CPC be sent to the
said witness/Halqa Patwari.
Let fresh PF be filed within one week,
thereafter the process for the service of AW
mentioned at Sr. No.1, in the list of witness for the
date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP No. 39 of 2023 in Arb. CaseAW-1 Statement of Shri Ajay Gautam, S/o Late Shri
R.K. Gautam, aged about 52 years, presently
working as Chief Engineer, HPSEBL, North
Zone, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
03.04.2024
Stated that the Arbitrator had passed the award
on 11.11.2022 and later the same was amended by the
Arbitrator on 26.11.2022 and the copy of amended award
was received in my office on 03.12.2022. The award was
placed before BOD for approval as to whether the same
was required to be challenged or to be accepted. On
03.03.2023, the approval of the BOD regarding
challenging of the said award was received in my office.
Thereafter, on 09.03.2023, the HPSEBL filed the
objections before the Hon’ble High Court against the
award. In the meanwhile, we tried to contact our legal
counsel in the High Court but due to the prevailing winter
vacation at that relevant time we could not contact him.
The delay, if any, is neither intentional nor willful but due
to the aforementioned reasons.
xxx xxx xxx Shri J.S. Bhogal, Senior
Advocate with Shri Satish Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent.
It is correct in my office diary and dispatch
Register is maintained properly. It is incorrect that
whenever any communication or post is received in the
office it is firstly kept as fresh receipt after the perusal of
the officer. Self stated that whenever, any communication
OMP No. 39 of 2023 in Arb. Case
is received in the office firstly it is diarized in the diary
and dispatch register and thereafter it is put before the
concerned officer. I do not remember the actual date
when the award of the Arbitrator was received in my
office. It is incorrect that the award of the Arbitrator was
received in my office on 29.11.2022. I am deposing
today on the basis of office record. I have brought the
official record pertaining to this case today. As per record
my office has received the copy of the award of the
Arbitrator on 03.12.2022. I do not remember the exact
date on which the award was sent to BOD for approval. It
is correct that the communication regarding sending of the
award for approval of BOD is also maintained in our
office record. It is correct that the record/communication
regarding receiving of the approval of BOD is also
maintained in our office. The then Executive Engineer of
my office contacted the counsel at High Court after
receiving of the approval of BOD. I have given verbal
instruction to the then Executive Engineer to contact the
counsel at High Court for assailing the award. I
personally don’t know that our counsel at High Court was
available on phone. It is incorrect that I am deposing
false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP No. 40 of 2023 in Arb. Case
AW-1 Statement of Shri Ajay Gautam, S/o Late Shri
R.K. Gautam, aged about 52 years, presently
working as Chief Engineer, HPSEBL, North
Zone, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
03.04.2024
Stated that the Arbitrator had passed the award
on 03.12.2022 and the award was placed before BOD for
approval as to whether the same was required to be
challenged or to be accepted. On 22.12.2022, the approval
of the BOD regarding challenging of the said award was
received in my office. Thereafter, on 22.03.2023, the
HPSEBL filed the objections before the Hon’ble High
Court against the award. In the meanwhile, we tried to
contact our legal counsel in the High Court but due to the
prevailing winter vacation at that relevant time we could
not contact him. The delay, if any, is neither intentional
nor willful but due to the aforementioned reasons.
xxx xxx xxx Shri J.S. Bhogal, Senior
Advocate with Shri Satish Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent.
It is correct in my office diary and dispatch
Register is maintained properly. It is incorrect that
whenever any communication or post is received in the
office it is firstly kept as fresh receipt after the perusal of
the officer. Self stated that whenever, any communication
is received in the office firstly it is diarized in the diary
and dispatch register and thereafter it is put before the
concerned officer. I do not remember the actual date
OMP No. 40 of 2023 in Arb. Case
when the award of the Arbitrator was received in my
office. I am deposing today on the basis of office record.
I have brought the official record pertaining to this case
today. As per record my office has received the copy of
the award of the Arbitrator on 03.12.2022. I do not
remember the exact date on which the award was sent to
BOD for approval. It is correct that the communication
regarding sending of the award for approval of BOD is
also maintained in our office record. It is correct that the
record/communication regarding receiving of the approval
of BOD is also maintained in our office. The then
Executive Engineer of my office contacted the counsel at
High Court after receiving of the approval of BOD. I have
given verbal instruction to the then Executive Engineer to
contact the counsel at High Court for assailing the award.
I personally don’t know that our counsel at High Court
was available on phone. It is incorrect that I am deposing
false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP No. 40 of 2023 in Arb. Case
AW-1 Statement of Shri Dhananjay Sharma,
Advocate, for the applicant.
Without Oath
03.04.2024
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant since the list of witness has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP No. 39 of 2023 in Arb. Case
AW-1 Statement of Shri Dhananjay Sharma,
Advocate, for the applicant.
Without Oath
03.04.2024
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant since the list of witness has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP No. 39 of 2023 in Arb. Case
03.04.2024 Present:-
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Shri
Satish Sharma, Advocate for the non-
applicant/respondent.
Statement of Shri Ajay Gautam is recorded as
AW-1. Learned counsel for the applicant vide his
separate statement has close the evidence on behalf
of applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents
seeks time for adducing evidence on behalf of the
respondent. However, learned counsel for the
applicant has raise the objection that since the
respondent has not filed any reply to the application,
therefore, they cannot be allowed to adduce
evidence, since the evidence, if any, led by the
respondent will be beyond pleadings.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP No. 40 of 2023 in Arb. Case03.04.2024 Present:-
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Shri
Satish Sharma, Advocate for the non-
applicant/respondent.
Statement of Shri Ajay Gautam is recorded as
AW-1. Learned counsel for the applicant vide his
separate statement has close the evidence on behalf
of applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents
seeks time for adducing evidence on behalf of the
respondent. However, learned counsel for the
applicant has raise the objection that since the
respondent has not filed any reply to the application,
therefore, they cannot be allowed to adduce
evidence, since the evidence, if any, led by the
respondent will be beyond pleadings.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 13640 in RSA NO.481 of 2016RW-3 Statement of Shri Subash Chand, S/o Shri
Madan Lal, aged about 59 years, R/o Village
and P.O Ludret The Dhera District Kangra H.P
On Oath
04.04.2024
Stated that I have filed an appeal in the Hon’ble
High Court against the order dated 8.6.2016 passed by the
First Appellate Court, Kangra. In that case vide order
dated 17.4.2017 the Hon’ble Court has directed the parties
not to change the nature of the suit land and not to create
any encumbrance over the suit land till the final disposal
of the appeal. The Khasra No. of the suit land is 43 and
44. I have constructed toilet and bathroom on Khasra No.
42 and I have not raised any construction over the suit
land having Khasra Nos. 43 and 44. I am owner in
possession of the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 40,41
and 42. The land in dispute having Khasra Nos. 43 and 44
is adjacent to my land comprised in Khasra Nos. 40,41
and 42. I have not get my land demarcated any point of
time self stated that all settlement operations had taken
place in my presence, therefore, I am well aware about my
land. I have not disobeyed the orders of the Hon’ble
Court as I have raised the construction in my own land. I
have made an application for demarcation before the
Revenue Authorities but the respondent Suram Chand did
not allow the Revenue Authorities to demarcate the land.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Mukul Sood Advocate, for
respondent.
It is correct that my father Sh. Madan Lal is
recorded as owner in possession of the Khasra Nos 40,41
and 42 in the Revenue Record. It is correct that the
Courts’ below have passed decree against me pertaining to
Khasra No. 44/1 self stated that being aggrieved by the
said decision I have assailed that decisions before Hon’ble
High court. Self stated that I used to cultivate Kharsa No.
44/1 also. It is correct that on 14 th November 2021, I
along with Parveen Kumar excavated the land with JCB
self stated that I have excavated the land which is Khasra
No. 42. I have not applied for the demarcation of the land
before raising any construction. It is incorrect that when I
was digging the land at that time respondent Suram Chand
requested me not to dig the land. Self stated that after the
digging the land Suram Chand raised the objection. I do
not know Suram Chand made complaints against me
before Panchyat and Police Authority. I do not know that
in my appeal the Court had given the direction to the
Police authorities to visit the spot and stop the
construction. Self stated that I got a telephonic information
that they are visiting the spot on 16.04.2023. I do not
know the location of photographs marked F-1,F-4,F-6 and
mark-B. However, photographs marked F-5 and mark-A
pertains to Khasra No. 42. I do not know subsequently
vide the orders dated 17.3.2022 by the Hon’ble High
Court the police along with the Revenue Authorities
visited the spot and conducted the spot inspection as well
as the land. I did not receive any notice from police or
Revenue Authority for remaining present on the spot on
14.12.2021. I was not present on the spot on 14.12.2021
since I was not aware about the visiting of the Revenue
Authorities along with Police Authority. It is correct that
Ex.AW1/A bears my signatures in red circle- A. Self
stated that the police officials took my signature on the
said document Ex. AW1/A at police post Nagrota Suria. It
is correct that on 14.12.2021 the construction apparent in
photograph mark-A was incomplete. Now, I have laid the
lintel on the structure raised by me in Khasra No.42. I do
not know at the time of visiting of Police authorities or
Revenue Sh. Ashwani Kumar was also present on the spot
and he helped the revenue authority to demark the land. I
have not placed on record any document from which could
be inferred that the respondent Suram Chand is not
allowing demarcation on the land. Self stated that I have
given the said documents to my Counsel. It is incorrect
that Panchyat Pardhan also visited the spot and advised me
to stop the construction. It is incorrect that I am deposing
false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th April, 2024
(gaurav)
CMP No. 13640 in RSA NO.481 of 2016
Statement of Shri Parav Sharma, Advocate for
the appellant-respondent
Without Oath
04.04.2024
Stated that I do not want to examine Sh. Ashwani
Kumar being repetitive in nature and give him up. I also close the
evidence on the behalf of respondent since the list of witnesses has
been exhausted.
RO&AC Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th April, 2024
(gaurav)
04.04.2024 Present:-
Mr. Parav Sharma learned counsel for the
appellant/non applicant.
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate for applicant/
respondent No.1
Statement of Shri Subash Chand is recorded as
RW-3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant vide
his separate statement has given up the witness Sh.
Ashwani Kumar and close the evidence on behalf of
respondent.
Since, the evidence on behalf of the parties is
complete, therefore, the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders. .
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
4th April, 2024
(gaurav)
CMP No. 10773 of 2022 in RSA No. 633 of 2005
21.03.2024 Present:-
Shri Abhishek, Advocate, vice Ms. Rachna
Kuthiala, Advocate, for the applicant.
None for respondents.
As per office report, steps i.e. PF, list of
witnesses and road and diet money have not been
deposited. Learned vice counsel for the applicant-
appellant seeks time for doing the needful.
Let steps be taken within fifteen days,
thereafter the process be issued for the service of AWs
returnable for 23.05.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21th March, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 19 of 201405.04.2024 Present:-
Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri H.S. Upadhayaya, Advocate, for the
defendants.
As per office report, PW-3, Shri Vikas Jain was
required to be produced on self responsibility for the
purpose of his cross examination. Learned counsel for
the plaintiff submits that due to some Court case at
Delhi, he could not come to Shimla for his cross
examination. The perusal of case file shows that
cross examination of the said witness is deferred in the
year 2019 and thereafter, on one pretext to the other,
he is not coming to the Court for his cross
examination. One last opportunity is granted for his
cross examination and it is made clear that in the event
of non-appearing on the next date of hearing, the
matter will be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for the
cross examination PW-3 (Vikas Jain).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
5th March, 2024
(Pritam)
06.04.2024 Present:
Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi (Petitioner in
person) alongwith Shri Neeraj Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Shri Aman Panwar and Shri
Ajeet Jaswal, Advocates.
The petition and its accompanying documents
have been scrutinized under my personal supervision and
the same are found to be in order. The petition is also
accompanying the receipt of security costs and the same is
annexed with the petition. The petition is also within
limitation. Be processed further as per Rules.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1244 of 2022 in RSA
08.04.2024 Present:-
Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate, vice Shri Tara
Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicants.
Shri Harsh Kalta, Advocate, vice Shri Tejasvi
Dogra, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1,2
and 4 to 6.
As per office report, the witnesses are required to
be produced on self responsibility by the applicants.
As per order dated 11.01.2024, of the Hon’ble Court,
the matter was listed on 04.03.2024, for fixing the date
of evidence for today.
Learned vice counsel for the applicants submits
that the witnesses are not present today and she seeks
adjournment for today.
Since, the witnesses are required to be produced
by the applicants on self responsibility for today but
due to non-appearance of the witnesses they could not
be examined. No cogent reason has been assigned by
the learned vice counsel for the non-appearance of the
witnesses today.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before
the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th April, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 37 of 2014
09.04.2024 Present:-
Shri Kshitij Thakur, Advocate, vice Shri N.S.
Chandel, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Ms. Ritu Singh, vice counsel for defendant No.
1 and 2.
Shri Tarun Bragta, Advocate, vice Shri Ajay
Sharma, Advocate, for the defendants No. 3 to
6.
Defendant No.7 already ex-parte.
The plaintiff was required to be produced on self
responsibility today for his evidence. However,
learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he is not
present today due to some health problem. No medical
prescription or any other certificate has been placed on
record by the learned vice counsel for the plaintiff.
Two opportunities have already been granted for
the plaintiff’s evidence but he did not put appearance
for adducing his evidence.
Accordingly, let the case be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th April, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 13 of 2019
PW-4 Statement of Shri Subhash Chauhan, S/o Late
Shri Balak Ram Chauhan, aged about 45
years, R/o Village Pajol, P.O Devgarh, Tehsil
Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
19.04.2024
Stated that I am dealing in fruit business since
2016-2017. The defendants are known to me from the
last 10 years since they also deal in the fruit and vegetable
business. I have forwarded the consignment of my apple
crop to the defendants from 14.08.2018 to 06.10.2018
through transporter Shri Deepak Saini. Shri Deepak
Saini is owner of Vishal Haryana Freight Carrier. The
consignment was used to be initiated from Parwanoo and
the same was sent to the different locations of the
defendant-company through bilty issued by the
transporter. I have forwarded the apple crop to the
defendant-company amounting to Rs. 4,30,07,201/- (Rs.
Four crore thirty lacs seven thousand and two hundred one
only). Out of the total above stated amount the defendant
company had paid me an amount of Rs.2,49,50,000/-
through Bank transaction, copy of the Bank Statement is
Ex. PW-2/A and the balance amount of Rs.1,80,57,201 is
still outstanding. Whatever consignment was sent by me
to the defendant-company, I have maintained the accounts
for that. The daily business register maintained by me is
Ex. PW-4/A (79 leaves). I use to forward the daily
consignment bills to the defendant No.2 through
whatsapp. The whatsapp No. of defendant No.2 is 98100-
COMS No. 13 of 2019
58021. Defendant No.2 used to respond my whatsapp
message and used to send the details of the daily business
transaction done by him to me. The details of the
whatsapp chat is Ex.PW-4/B (41 leaves). Objected to on
the mode of proof. Since the outstanding payment was not
paid by the defendants then I personally met three-four
times with defendant No.2 but he did not pay any heed
regarding payment of the outstanding amount. However,
offered me to settle the case either by going to the Court
or accept only 20 to 30% amount of the outstanding
payment or to use the mussel power. Therefore, I
preferred to come to the Court for my grievances against
defendants. Before I started to conduct the business with
the defendant, the defendant No.2 alongwith his son Shri
Deepak (son of defendant No.2) and Shri Dheeraj (nephew
of defendant No.2) assured me that I will never face any
problem in the business or regarding any payment. I have
also made a complaint to Chairman APMC, Azadpur
Delhi which is Ex. PW-1/A & Ex. PW-1/B. I could not
pursue the above said complaints at Delhi due to
CORONA pandemic at that time. Since the defendants
have not paid my outstanding amount till date for which I
am entitled for.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Ravinder Malik Advocate,
for defendants.
I am not a orchardist, I am working as
forwarding agent. I am dealing with the defendant-
company since 2016-2017. I met defendant No.2 at
Chandigarh at Sector-26, since he used to work at
COMS No. 13 of 2019
Chandigarh. Shri Bhagwan Dass is having two-three
companies in the name of BXN and DW International. I
do not know the other companies owned by defendant
No.2. The defendant No.1 is a proprietor ship firm.
Again stated that I do not properly know about the status
of the defendant No.1 whether it is a company or
proprietor ship firm. The orders were placed by the
defendants through phone. Defendant No.2 used to place
the order through telephonic calls. No written order in
the form of whatsapp message or text message were
placed by the defendants. The rate of the consignment
was negotiated through telephonic call and the idea of the
rate of consignment was used to be proposed by
defendant No.2. The bills Ex.PW4/A ( leaves) were
prepared by the person deputed by defendant No.2. It is
correct that I have not prepared any of the above said bills.
It is correct that the above said bills do not bear my
signature. Ex. PW4/B are the printouts of the whatsapp
message taken out from whatsapp web. I have taken the
printouts of Ex. PW4/B in a cyber café. I do not
remember the name of that cyber café. I have not
annexed any certificate under Section 65 B regarding the
authenticity of the printouts of the bills Ex. PW4/B. It is
wrong to suggest that the bills Ex. PW4/B are forged and
fabricated. Shri Deepak Saini (transporter) is known to
me from the last 5-6 years. Whenever the consignment
was sent through transport I did not use to collect the
builties. Self stated that the bilties of the consignment
COMS No. 13 of 2019
were collected by me from the transporter collectively at
the end of the season. Transporter Deepak Saini was also
known to defendant No.2. It is correct that the main office
of defendant No.2 is/was at Azadpur Mandi, Delhi. I
have visited his office at Azadpur Mandi, Delhi only when
I did not receive the outstanding amount of my
consignment. It is correct that there is signature of Shri
Bhagwan Dass, Deepak and Dheeraj on the Bilties Mark
P-1 to P-83. I do not know whenever any consignment is
sent any bill/invoice is generated/prepared or not. Self
stated that I use to do the business with the defendants on
mutual faith and I have sent the bills through whatsapp to
him which has been annexed with my suit. The
defendants did not use to send any confirmation regarding
arrival of the consignment however, whenever, there was
any complaint regarding the consigned material only then
they use to talk to me. It is incorrect that the defendant
did not send any confirmation in writing because I never
sent any material/consignment to him. I use to purchase
the apple crop from Parwanoon Mandi for the
consignment. Self stated that I have made the payments to
the persons through their Bank Accounts from whom I had
purchased the apple crop for consigning the same. It is
correct that I have not annexed any proof regarding the
payments which I had made to the Parwanoo Mandi
merchants. I have personal knowledge that BXN and DW
International are the companies owned by defendant No.2.
It is incorrect that the above said companies are not owned
COMS No. 13 of 2019
by defendant No.2. I use to deliver the consignments to
the employees of the defendant No.2 at Parwanoo Mandi
and they use to send the consignment to different locations
of the defendant No.1-company. It is incorrect that the
employees of the defendant use to engage the services of
the transporter. Self stated that I also use to hire the
services of transporter. It is correct that whenever the
transporter use to take the material from the Market
Committee a gate pass/receipt is generated and also the
gate pass is generated at the place of destination. I do not
know that the gate passes are generated all over India
wherever the transporters delivers the consignments. It is
wrong to suggest that I have not sent any consignments to
the defendants. It is incorrect that Shri Bhagwan Dass
defendant No.2 had given an amount of Rs.2,50,10,000/-
to me on account of loan taken by me from him. It is
correct that the date and time on the printouts of the bills
Ex. PW4/B, is same. Self stated that all the printouts have
been taken on the same day. I did not use to maintained
any ledger. I have not placed on record the original
bilties. Self stated that the original bilties have already
been taken by the employees of the defendants to Delhi. It
is wrong to suggest that no such bilties have been taken by
the defendants. I did not pursue the complaint Ex.PW1/A
and Ex. PW1/B, as I could not go to Delhi. It is incorrect
that I did not pursue the above said complaints since they
are false complaints against the defendants. It is wrong to
suggest that I have filed the present suit falsely against the
COMS No. 13 of 2019
defendants in order to evade my liability of my loan,
which had been taken by me from the defendants. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false. It is incorrect that there
is no outstanding amount due to me from the defendants
or any interest thereupon.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
19th April, 2024
(gaurav)
COMS No. 13 of 2019
Statement of Shri Subhash Chauhan (Plaintiff),
S/o Late Shri Balak Ram Chauhan, aged about
45 years, R/o Village Pajol, P.O Devgarh,
Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
19.04.2024
Stated that I close the plaintiff’s evidence since
the list of witnesses has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
19th April, 2024
(gaurav)
COMS No. 13 of 2019
19.04.2024 Present:-
Shri P.P. Chauhan, Tara Devi and Shikha
Rajta, Advocates, for the plaintiff.
Shri Ravinder Malik, Advocate with Shri
Shivanshu Attri, Advocate for the defendants.
Statement of the plaintiff is recorded as PW-4.
Plaintiff vide his separate statement has close the
plaintiff evidence.
Learned counsel for the defendants seeks time for
DWs. Let the steps, if any, be taken within fifteen
days, thereafter, the process be issued for the service
of DWs for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th April, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 15 of 2023
22.04.2023 Present:-
None for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Verma with Ms. Srishti Verma,
Advocates, for the respondents.
In terms of the previous order dated
28.03.2024, the verification of Bank guarantee furnished by
the respondents was sent for.
As per the office report, verification letter of
Bank Guarantee has been received from the State Bank of
India, Commercial Branch, Sector-17B, Chandigarh.
However, as per order dated 11.01.2024, passed by the
Hon’ble Court, the respondents have to specifically give the
undertaking that in case non-applicant-petitioner succeed in
the matter, the applicant-respondent shall deposit the amount
released in his favour alongwith interest accrued thereon, but
the undertaking as directed by the Hon’ble Court has not
been furnished by the respondents.
Learned vice counsel for the respondents seeks time
for doing the needful.
Accordingly, the case be listed after the above said
undertaking will be furnished by the respondents.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd April, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 6 of 2011
22.04.2023 Present:-
Shri Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Shri
Khem Raj, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Defendants No. 1 to 3 already ex-parte.
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, for defendants
No. 4 to 6.
Shri Dalip Narwal, Tax Inspector from the
Office of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and Ms. Renu
Sharma, Record Keeper, New Judicial Record Room, Office
of District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, are present. Both the
witnesses have submitted that since the requisitioned record
pertains to the year 1952 and 1963 respectively, therefore, it
could not be traced out within the short span and both the
witnesses requested some more time be given for tracing the
requisitioned record. Since, both the witnesses have not
brought the requisitioned record, therefore, they are
discharged for today.
One more witness Shri Nishant Pathania, Civil
Ahlmad, Office of Senior Civil Judge, Court No.2, Shimla,
is also present with the requisitioned record. However,
learned counsel for the defendants submits that before
examining this witness, he is required to inspect the record
of the District Court brought by this witness. Therefore,
learned counsel prayed that this witness may also be
discharged for today.
Accordingly, due to the non-availability of the
requisitioned record and on the request of learned counsel
for defendants No. 4 to 6, the witnesses present today are
discharged.
Civil Suit No. 6 of 2011
Let fresh PF and diet money be filed by the
defendants No. 4 to 6, within three weeks and thereafter, the
matter be listed for remaining DWs for the date to be fixed
by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd April, 2022
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017RW-1 Statement of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Shri
Devi Singh, aged 46 years House No. 204/12,
Ramnagar, Mandi,. District Mandi, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
24.04.2024
Shri Devi Singh (Appellant) is my father and I
am the Special Power of Attorney holder of Shri Devi
Singh. He has authorized me to adduce evidence in the
present case, vide Special Power of Attorney Ex.
RW-1/A, (original seen and returned), since he is more
than 80 years old and is unable to travel due to his ill
health. I am fully conversant with the entire facts of the
present case. My father Shri Devi Singh has filed an
appeal in this High Court. Vide order dated 17.04.2017,
the Hon’ble Court has directed the parties to this lis to
maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit
land and vide order dated 11.07.2017, the said order was
made absolute by the Hon’ble Court. The construction
had been raised on the disputed land by my father in
August 2008 by engaging a contractor namely Shri Netar
Singh. My father had raised twelve pillars and laid a lintel
over the said pillars and further raised those twelve pillars
on the first floor in the year 2008. There are three shops
covered with shutter in the ground floor. No other
construction has been raised by us after the year 2008.
My father has not breached the order of the Hon’ble High
Court and we have not raised any further construction
after the passing of the above said orders by the Hon’ble
Court.
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
xxx xxx xxx Shri Roop Lal Chaudhary,
Advocate for applicant/respondent No.4
It is correct that photographs Mark A-1 and
A-2 are the shops including house of my father as visible
in the photographs. Self stated that the house has been
constructed by my forefathers in the year 1987, which is
upon Khasra No. 45. It is correct that the construction
shown in the photographs Mark A-1 and A-2, were raised
by my father prior to the passing of the status quo order by
this Hon’ble Court. It is correct that the shops apparent in
photograph Mark A-5, belongs to my father. It is correct
that the pillars on the first floor are also apparent on the
photograph Mark A-5. It is incorrect that the pillars on the
first floor has been raised by us in the month of October,
2022. It is incorrect that in the old constriction there were
no pillars on the first floor. It is incorrect that my father
has intentionally disobeyed the status quo order passed by
the High Court. I do not know that Shri Ashok Kumar,
respondent No.4 had made a police complaint in the year
2022, regarding the illegal construction raised by my
father in that year. It is incorrect that after the complaint
of Shri Ashok Kumar police visited the spot and requested
my father not to raise the further construction on the first
floor. It is incorrect that I am deposing false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
24th April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
RW-2 Statement of Shri Raj Kumar, S/o Late Shri
Hadu Ram, aged 45 years Village Bohi, P.O.
Sehali, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
24.04.2024
I am meson by occupation. I have worked as
meson in the year 2008 for raising the construction of
non-applicant shops. I was engaged as Meson through
contractor Shri Netar Singh. We have raised twelve
pillars in the ground floor and laid one lintel and
thereafter raised further twelve on the first floor at that
time. Thereafter no construction has been raised by Shri
Devi Ram as I use to pass by the spot and as of date no
further construction has been raised by Shri Devi Singh.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Roop Lal Chaudhary,
Advocate for applicant/respondent No.4
It is correct that the construction apparent on
photographs Mark-3 and Mark-4 is the same which was
raised by me as Meson. It is incorrect that no other
construction was raised by me thereafter. Self stated that I
have raised twelve pillars on the said construction
thereafter in the year 2008. I do not know after the stay
order from the High Court Shri Devi Singh appellant/non-
applicant has raised three pillars in October 2022 by
breaching the order of the Hon’ble High Court. I have
seen three pillars as visible in photograph Mark-5, as the
same has been raised by me in the year 2008. It is
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
incorrect that the three pillars in the photograph Mark-5
were raised by the appellant in October, 2022. My house
is about 10-12 Kms., away from the house of Shri Devi
Ram appellant. It is incorrect that I am deposing false
today that the three pillars as visible in photographs
Mark-5 had been raised by me in the year 2008. I do not
know that Shri Ashok Kumar, respondent No.4 had made
a complaint to the police in October, 2022. It is incorrect
that Shri Devi Ram appellant is in my relation. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false since I am in relation to
him. It is incorrect that son of Devi Ram has brought me
to Shimla for adducing evidence. Self stated that I have
received the Court summon, however, I have to come
alongwith him.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
24th April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
RW-3 Statement of Shri Suresh Kumar, S/o Shri
Gokal Chand, aged 52 years Muhalla
Chhadyara, Village Pulgharat, P.O. Gutkar,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
24.04.2024
Appellant Devi Singh is my neighbor and we
share the boundaries of our land. Shri Devi Singh had
raised three shops opposite to my shops. Shri Devi
Singh had constructed the shops and pillars in the first
floor in the year 2008. After 2008, Shri Devi Singh did
not raise any construction over the said land or the already
raised construction.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Roop Lal Chaudhary,
Advocate for applicant/respondent No.4
Shri Devi Singh and Ms. Tara Devi are real
brother and sister and both are my neighbors. Now Ms.
Tara Devi has expired. It is correct that the shops visible
in photographs Mark A-1 and A-2 belongs to Shri Devi
Singh. It is correct that there is no pillars in the
photographs Mark A-1 and A-2. Self stated that there are
pillars on the said shop. I do not know how the
photographer has clicked the photographs by disappearing
the pillars in the photographs. It is incorrect that the three
pillars as apparent in photograph Mark-5 has been raised
by Shri Devi Ram in the year October, 2022. It is
incorrect that in October, 2022, Shri Ashok Kumar
requested Shri Devi Singh not to raise any further
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
construction. It is incorrect that Shri Ashok Kumar made
a complaint to the police in October, 2022 and thereafter
the police visited the spot. Self stated that police never
visited the spot in my presence. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
24th April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1528 of 2022 in RSA No. 111 of 2017
23.04.2023 Present:-
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the non-
applicant/appellant.
Shri Roop Lal Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
respondent No.4.
\ Statement of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Shri Raj
Kumar and Shri Suresh Kumar, are recorded as RW-1, RW-
2, and RW-3, respectively. Let the remaining sole witness
be summoned for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd April, 2022
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 15 of 2020PW-1 Statement of Shri Bal Krishan, S/o Late Shri
Bal Mukand Das, aged 58 years, presently
working as SWOA Punjab National Bank,
Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
24.04.2024
Stated that I am working as Single Window
Operator, Punjab National Bank Parwanoo for the last one
year. I have brought the requisitioned record, which has
been handed over to me by the Manager of the Bank. I am
not aware whether the record sent by the Manager is
original or not. I have come to the Court today on the
direction of the Manager.
Since the witness is not aware about the
authenticity of the documents brought by him today,
therefore, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he
be discharged and the concerned person be summoned.
Accordingly, the witness is discharged for
today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
24th April, 2024
Civil Suit No. 15 of 2020
24.04.2023 Present:-
Shri Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for the
plaintiff.
Shri Atul Jhingan, Advocate, for the defendant.
Shri Bal Krishan, SWOA, Punjab National
Bank, Sector-I, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., is present
today. The witness has brought some documents as
requisitioned in the summon, however, as per the witness he
is not aware whether the documents sent by the Manager are
original/authenticated or not.
In that eventuality, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submits that witness could not be examined and the
documents already placed on record could not be proved in
accordance with law by this witness.
Accordingly, the witness present today is discharged.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that he
is about to move an application under Order XVIII Rule 3A
CPC today itself for exemption of examining the plaintiff at
the first instance.
Let the said application be listed before the Hon’ble
Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th April, 2022
(Pritam)
COMS No. 33 of 2018
25.04.2024 Present:-
Shri Manoj Sharma, Advocate vice Shri
Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
None for defendants No. 1 to 3.
As per office report, summons issued to PW-1,
has not been received back either served or un-served.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff’s submits that the
plaintiff is also not present today for adducing his evidence.
He seeks time for PWs.
Let the plaintiff be produced on self responsibility
and PW-1, be summoned again on old PF for the date to be
fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25th April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013RW-1 Statement of Shri Karam Chand, S/o Shri
Devi Dass, aged 40 years, R/o Village Summa,
P.O. Dugilag, Tehsil & District Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
29.04.2024
Stated that I am working as Helper in Usaka
Hydro Power Project at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, since
2011. Since the date of my employment at Usaka Hydro
Power Project, I consistently seen all types of vehicles are
plying on the road which leads to Usaka Power Project
from the main road.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Bimal Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary,
Advocate.
My house is about 500 mtrs. away from Usaka
Hydro Project. I do not know the Khasra numbers from
where the road lead to Usaka Hydro Power Project from
main road. The main road leads from Kullu to Lag valley.
I have received the summons from the Court for my
appearance in the Court today for adducing evidence.
Usaka Hydro Project had issued me appointment letter for
my employment. I have not brought the appointment
letter today, however, identity card issued by the said
Project is with me today, which is shown and returned. It
is correct that I have nothing to do with Gaur Hydro
Power Project. It is incorrect that there is no road to the
Usaka Hydro Project since 2011 from the main road. It is
incorrect that I am deposing false today on the asking of
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
the management of the Usaka Hydro Power Project,
Kullu, H.P.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate for
non-applicant-appellants.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
29th April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
RW-2 Statement of Shri Guddu Ram, S/o Shri Surat
Ram, aged 34 years, R/o Village Summa, P.O.
Dugilag, Tehsil & District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
29.04.2024
Stated that I am Driver by occupation and
employed in Usaka Hydro Power Project. I have seen the
road which leads to Usaka Hydro Project since my joining
in the said Project i.e. 2011. I am plying the vehicle till
date on that road.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Bimal Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary,
Advocate.
The above said road leads from Power House
to the site where there is outlet of the water from the
Power Project. It is correct that there is Khad in between
the Power House and the road. I do not know when the
Bridge apparent in photograph Mark A-4 was built. It is
correct that I have come to the Court today along with Shri
Jhabe Ram. It is correct that we were brought to the Court
today by Shri Varun General Manager of the Usaka Power
Project. I do not know the Khasra Numbers of the road,
which have been mentioned above by me. It is incorrect
that I am deposing false today on the asking of General
Manager of the Usaka Power Project.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate for
non-applicant-appellants.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
29th April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
Statement of Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for
respondents No. 4 and 5.
Without Oath
29.04.2024
Stated that I give up rest of the witnesses
mentioned in the list of witnesses being repetitive in
nature.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
29th April, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP(M) No. 42 of 2016 in RSa No. 4272 of 2013
25.04.2024 Present:-
Shri Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
applicans.
Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, vice Shri Sanjeev
Sood, Advocate, for the non-applicants-
appellants.
Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for respondents
No. 4 and 5.
Statement of Shri Karam Chand and Shri
Guddu Ram are recorded as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively.
Vide separate statement Shri Ajay Vaidya, learned counsel
for respondents No. 4 and 5 has given up rest of the
witnesses mentioned in their list of witnesses. Learned
counsel for the non-applicants/appellants submits that they
have already filed the list of witnesses and diet money.
Let the witnesses of the non-applicant-appellants be
summoned for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25th April, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 23 of 202030.04.2024
Present: None for the petitioner.
Shri Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the
respondent.
In compliance to the order dated 27.03.2024, the
applicant-respondent has furnished the Bank Guarantee to the
tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs), which is shown to be
valid upto 08.05.2025, duly issued by the State Bank of India,
Sector-68, Mohali, Punjab.
Let the verification be sought from the concerned
Bank and thereafter the matter be again listed before the
undersigned.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
30th April, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023
30.04.2024
Present: Shri Goldy Dhiman, Advocate, for the applicant-
appellant
Shri Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for the non-
applicant-respondent.
As per the previous order dated 06.03.2024, the
applicant was required to be produced on self
responsibility. However, learned counsel for the
applicant-appellant submits that he could not come to the
Court today due to his ill health. Order dated
02.01.2024, further reveals that the applicant has taken
adjournment on account of the winter season.
It appears that the applicant is intentionally
and willing not coming to the Court on one pretext or the
other for adducing his evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant will be produced positively on the next date of
hearing for adducing his evidence.
Let the case be listed on 01.07.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
30th April, 2024
(Pritam)
Election Petition No. 1 of 2023
30.04.2024
Present: Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.
Vidushi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Shri
Shagun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Respondents No. 2 to 4 already ex-parte.
Respondent No.5, already deleted vide order dated
11.10.2023 of the Hon’ble Court.
Admission and denial of the documents filed
by respondent No.1, has been done by the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.1, submits that the original counsel is out of station
on account of his marriage and he seeks adjournment for
today for admission and denial of the documents filed
by the petitioner.
Let the case be listed on 14.05.2024, for
admission and denial of the documents filed by the
petitioner.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
30th April, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 2 of 2020
01.05.2024
Present: Shri Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for the defendant No.1
Defendant No.2 already ex-parte.
Two witnesses Shri Vishal Sandhu,
Manager Punjab National Bank Gagret, District Una and
Shri Amit Verma, Manager State Bank of India, Branch
Gagret, District Una, are present. Learned counsel for
the plaintiff submits that these witnesses have not
brought the entire requisitioned record, therefore, due to
the non-availability of entire record they could not be
examined. Learned counsel requested for discharge of
these witnesses for today.
Accordingly, the witnesses present today are
discharged. Learned counsel further submits that he
wants to bring on record certain documents and he will
move the appropriate application in that regard.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble
Court after filing the application by the plaintiff.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
1st May, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 8 of 2018
PW-1 Statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Upreti, S/o
Shri Mohan Chand Upreti, aged 59 years,
presently posted as Director (Operation),
H.P.S.E.B.L., Kumar House, Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
02.05.2024
Stated that I am working with H.P.S.E.B.L.
since 1989. The present suit has been drafted and filed
under my instructions. I have been duly authorized by the
Board of Directors of HPSEBL to file and depose in the
present case. The authority letters is Ex. PW-1/A (seven
leaves). The plaintiff is a government company registered
under the Companies Act and is a distribution license
under the Electricity Act 2003 and is a license authorize to
operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying
electricity to the customers in the State of Himachal
Pradesh. The defendant No.1-Company applied for the
electricity connection in their favour vide application and
Agreement Form No. 1307 on 01.02.2006, Ex.PW-1/B
(three leaves). and on the application cum agreement of
the defendant No.1-company, the plaintiff vide order dated
20.12.2006 Ex. PW-1/C, release the service connection in
favour of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 use to pay
the Electricity Bills regularly till April, 2014 but thereafter
started to make lapses in the payment of the Electricity
Bills. For the consumption of the Electricity Bill for the
month of April the bill was raised in the month of April by
the plaintiff which is Ex.PW-1/D-1. But that the entire
Bill was not paid by the defendant No.1-company. The
COMS No. 8 of 2018
plaintiff use to issue the bills for the subsequent months up
till 12.10.2015, to the defendant-company which are Ex.
PW-1/D-2, to Ex.PW-1/D-18. Due to the non-payment
of the arrears of the Electricity Bills by the defendant
No.1-company on 12.10.2015, the disconnection order
was issued and the Electricity Meter of the defendant
No.1-company was temporarily disconnected. The copy
of the disconnection order is Ex. PW-1/E. Subsequent to
the disconnection order Ex,.PW-1/E, the defendant No.1-
company deposited an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- with the
plaintiff-company and the same adjusted qua the arrears of
the Electricity Bills of the defendant No.1-company.
Since the defendant No.1-company has not deposited the
entire arrears and recurring bills, therefore, permanent
disconnection order was passed on 12.04.2016, and the
supply of the defendant-company was disconnected w.e.f.
18.04.2016. The copy of permanent disconnection order
is Ex. PW-1/F. The recurring bills even after the
permanent disconnection were issued to the defendant
No.1-companhy, which are Ex.PW-1/G-1 to Ex.
PW-1/G-6. Since the subsequent bills were also not paid
by the defendant-company, therefore, the plaintiff adjusted
the security amount of Rs.60,00,000/- towards the arrears
of the electricity bills of the defendant-company. Even
after the adjustment of Rs. 60,00,000/- an amount of
Rs.1,61,52,597/- remained outstanding. Due to the non-
payment of the outstanding amount the plaintiff was
COMS No. 8 of 2018
constrained to file the present suit for the recovery of the
above said outstanding amount.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Rahul Singh Verma,
Advocate for the defendants No. 1,3 and 4.
It is correct that the copy of the authority letter
Ex PW-1/A, is not a certified by any authority. Self stated
that the said letter is available on the website of HPSEBL.
The authority letter is issued in favour of an employee by
designation in general for all cases. The electricity bills
are calculated on the basis of tariff duly approved by the
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission. I am not
aware that the defendant No.1-company had given one
application qua the correction of electricity bills because
the same were raised on the exaggerated amount. I am not
aware that the defendant No.1-company has gone into
liquidation and wound up. I am also not aware that due to
winding up proceeding of the drfendant No.1-company,
Vijay Bank ceased the entire property of the defendant
No.1-Company from 2018. It is incorrect that due to
permanent disconnection of the electricity connection of
the defendant company the production was completely
stopped in the defendant-company due to which the
company suffered huge monitory losses. It is incorrect that
the calculated outstanding amount is without any basis. It
is incorrect that even after the adjustment of the security
amount, the defendant No.1-company use to pay the
outstanjding bills through RTGS/ NEFT. Self stated that
any amount which has been paid by the defendant No-1-
COMS No. 8 of 2018
COMS No. 8 of 2018
company has duly been adjusted prior to the filing of the
present suit. It is incorrect that the amount claimed in the
present suit is wrong. I am not aware that even after the
permanent disconnection of electricity connection the
defendant No1-company vide letter dated 25.07.2016,
made a request to the plaintiff for allowing them to pay the
outstanding electricity dues in equal installments as well
as for the restoration of power supply. Self stated that till
the entire outstanding amount is paid, the electricity
connection could not be restored. The restoration of the
electricity connection is done as per the procedure laid
down by the plaintiff-company. It is incorrect that I am
deposing false. It is incorrect that the amount claimed by
the plaintiff is without any basis.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd May, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 8 of 2018
02.05.2024
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri.
Dhananjay Sharma and Shri Vivek Thakur,
Advocates for the plaintiff.
Shri Rahul Singh Verma, Advocate, for defendants
No. 1,3 and 4.
Defendants No. 2 and 5 already ex-parte.
Power of Attorney on behalf of the plaintiff
has been filed by Shri Dhananjai Sharma and Shri Vivek
Thakur, Advocates, which is taken on record. Shri
Manoj Kumar Upreti (Plaintiff) was produced on self
responsibility today and is examined as PW-1. As per
office report, list of witnesses has not been filed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks time for taking
steps for examination of the other witnesses.
Let the steps, if any, be taken within fifteen
days, thereafter, the process be issued for the service of
remaining PWs for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd May, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 6 of 2018
03.05.2024
Present: Shri Varun Chauhan, vice counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate vice Shri Tara Singh
Chauhan, Advocate for defendant No.1.
None for defendant No.2
Ms. Anjana learned vice counsel for defendant
No.3.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff
submits that due to ill health, the plaintiff could not come
to the Court for adducing his evidence. Learned vice
counsel for the plaintiff has also placed on record the
prescription slip, which is taken on record. Learned vice
counsel for the plaintiff seeks adjournment for today.
The adjournment sought on the said ground is allowed as
not opposed.
Let the plaintiff be produce on self
responsibility on the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
PW-1 Statement of Shri P.S. Attli, aged 67 years,
Superintending Engineer (Retd.) R/o House
No. 4999, Sector 68, Pancham Society, Mohali,
Punjab.
On Oath
06.05.2024
Stated that I have retired as Superintending
Engineer from the HPSEBL, in June, 2014. The present
suit has been filed by me on behalf of the plaintiff-
company. I was duly authorized by the plaintiff-company,
vide Authority Letter Ex. PW-1/A (four leaves) to file the
present suit and vide Sales Manual instruction Ex. PW-
1/B, I was duly authorized by designation to sign attest
and authenticate the present plaint. I have also been duly
authorized by the Board of Directors vide office order
Ex.PW-1/C, to adduce evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-
company. At the time of the filing of the present Civil
Suit, I was posted as Superintending Engineer (Operation
Circle), Una District Una, Himachal Pradesh. The
plaintiff company is in distribution licensee under the
Electricity Act 2003 and is a licensee authorized to operate
and maintain a distribution system for supplying
electricity to the consumers in the State of Himachal
Pradesh. The defendant-company had started its operation
at Industrial Unit at Village Tibbi, P.O. Kalaruhi, Tehsil
Amb, District Una and obtained electricity connection
from plaintiff-company to start its Industrial Unit after
entering into the agreement with the plaintiff-company. In
February, 2010, the defendant-company started to make
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
defaults in the payments of the electricity bills,
consequently, the electricity supply of the defendant-
company was disconnected. Thereafter, on the request of
the defendant-company, vide letter dated 09.03.2011,
Mark `A’, wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer
(Commercial) HPSEBL, for grant of permission for six
installments of outstanding amount of Rs.53,82,655/- of
the defendant-company. On the payment of the first
installments by the defendant-company, the electricity
connection was restored. The connected load of the
defendant-company was 5450 KW. Thereafter, the
defendant-company requested the Chief Engineer
(Commercial) HPSEBL to reduce the load from 5450 KW
to 50 KVA. Thereafter, on the request of the defendant-
company, the load of was reduced. Even after the
payment of first installment of the electricity bill the
defendant-company again made a default in the payments
of the electricity bills. Thereafter, the the plaintiff-
company decided to revoke the Bank Guarantee furnished
by the defendant-company. Thereafter, the defendant-
company preferred to assail the orders, of the Board
regarding revocation of the Bank Guarantee before the
District Consumer Forum, Una. The District Consumer
Forum Una granted the stay to the defendant-company.
However, the Consumer complaint filed by the defendant-
company was ultimately dismissed. Accordingly, the
Bank Guarantee furnished by the defendant-company
was revoked by the defendant-company. Thereafter, the
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
defendant-company field another complaint before Forum
for Redressal of Grievances of HPSEBL Consumers
(FRGC) and in that complaint FRGC, directed the
plaintiff-company to restore the electricity connection of
the defendant-company subject to the payment of the
charges for the new connection as well as 15%
Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) of the already
deposited IDC charges. The copy of the re-connection
order is Mark `B’. After the interim order of FRGC the
defendant-company deposited the amount as directed by
the FRGC. Thereafter, upto June 2013 the defendant-
company use to pay the electricity bills generated by the
plaintiff-company but thereafter, they again made a
default in the payment of electricity bills. The FRGC
decided the complaint of the defendant-company on
01.10.2013, the copy of the same is Ex.PW-1/D
( tenleaves). Thereafter, the Regulatory Electricity
Commission enhanced the charges of IDC, due to which
outstanding amount of the electricity was increased of the
defendant-company. After the final decision of FRGC,
the defendant-company requested the plaintiff-company
for permanent disconnection of their electricity
connection. On the request of defendant-company, the
plaintiff permanently disconnected the electricity
connection on 01.10.2013. Due to the non-payment of the
outstanding amount i.e. Rs.2,40,74,338/- of the electricity
bills the plaintiff-company decided to file the present civil
suit, accordingly, the same was filed.
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
xxx xxx xxx Shri Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
Advocate, with Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
for the defendants.
I remain posted as Superintending Engineer,
Operation Circle HPSBL from 02.06.2014 to 30.06.2014.
It is correct that all the correspondences and deliberation
between the plaintiff and defendant-company were
conducted prior to my joining at Una. It is incorrect that I
did not have any authorization to file the present suit on
behalf of the plaintiff-company. It is correct that I have
not placed on record any authorization at the time of the
filing of present suit. It is incorrect that outstanding
energy charges were wrongly calculated and the same are
without any basis. I do not know that the defendant-
company made a request letter stating therein that the
calculation of the energy bill was wrong. It is correct that
as per FRGC order only 15% amount of the total IDC of
already deposited IDC were required to be deposited by
the defendant-company. I do not remember the amount of
the Bank Guarantee which have been revoked by the
plaintiff-company. I do not remember the date on which
the said Bank Guarantee was revoked. It is correct that
the defendant-company requested for the reduction of
contract demand. It is incorrect that the reduction of
contract demand was made without there being any
change in connected load. I do not remember whether
the connected load was reduced or not. I do not know
that the defendant-company was entitled for an amount of
Rs.17,15,502/- as refund amount. I do not remember the
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
total IDC of the defendant-company. It is incorrect that
even after the permanent disconnection of the electricity
connection the bills were raised for the energy
consumption. Self stated that only outstanding amount
has been calculated along with the other charges for filing
of the present suit. It is correct that the calculation
pertaining to the outstanding amount of the energy charges
was not personally calculated by me. It is incorrect that
the present suit has been filed without any basis and the
defendant-company is liable to pay what has been claimed
in the present suit. It is incorrect that I am deposing false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
6th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014
06.05.2024
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Tawarsu, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Shri
Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the defendant.
Statement of Shri P.S. Attli, is recorded as
PW-1. Let the PWs mentioned at Sl. No. 2 and 3 be
summoned for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
6th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 40 of 2022
07.05.2024
Present: Shri Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate
General, for the petitioner.
Shri Vikas Rajput, Advocate, vice Shri Arjun Lall,
Advocate, for the respondent.
As per the office report, application along with
undertaking in the shape of affidavit of the respondent-
applicant, valuation report of the property and the copies
of Jamabandi for the years 2021-2022, duly issued on
19.04.2024, has been filed by the respondent-applicant in
compliance of the order dated 05.04.2024 of the Hon’ble
Court as solvent security to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/-.
The perusal of Jamabandi annexed with the
application shows that the applicant-respondent (Yudhbir
Singh) is one of the co-sharer in the property as
mentioned in the Jamabandi and as per the valuation
report furnished by the applicant, he is one of the co-
sharer in the properties to the extant of 00-08-10 Bighas
and the valuer has considered the said share of the land
for the consideration evaluation of the said property. As
per the evaluation report, the entire property/share in the
land of the respondent is amounting to Rs.7,501,000/-.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant has also
furnished the non-encumbrance certificate duly issued by
the Village Revenue Officer, whereby he has certified
that the share of the applicant-respondent is free from all
encumbrances. The certificate is taken on record.
The respondent-applicant has undertook that he
shall not sell, transfer, charge or encumber the above
Arb. Case No. 40 of 2022
said property to anybody during the pendency of this
case.
Accordingly, the solvent security furnished by the
respondent-applicant is accepted by me. Further, let the
needful be done in accordance with the orders of the
Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
7th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 28 of 2014
08.05.2024
Present: Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate, vice Ms. Nishi Goel,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for
the defendants.
As per office report, the summons issued to DW-1
and DW-2, are served. Shri Ashwini Kumar, Patwari,
Patwar Circle Bhangrotu, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi
and Shri Thakur Dass, Patwari, Patwar Circle Bagla,
Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., are present.
Ld. Deputy Advocate General submits that though
the witnesses are present today but they have not brought
the original record and due to non-availability of the
original record, the documents could not be proved in
accordance with law. Learned Deputy Advocate General
prayed that the witnesses present today may be
discharged so that they will bring the original record.
The prayer of the learned Deputy Advocate
General is not opposed by the opposing counsel.
Accordingly, the witnesses present today are
discharged. Let fresh summons be issued for the date to
be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). Steps, if
any, be taken within fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in
08.05.2024
Present: Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate, vice Ms. Nishi Goel,
Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for
the defendants.
As per office report, the summons issued to DW-1
and DW-2, are served. Shri Ashwini Kumar, Patwari,
Patwar Circle Bhangrotu, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi
and Shri Thakur Dass, Patwari, Patwar Circle Bagla,
Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., are present.
Ld. Deputy Advocate General submits that though
the witnesses are present today but they have not brought
the original record and due to non-availability of the
original record, the documents could not be proved in
accordance with law. Learned Deputy Advocate General
prayed that the witnesses present today may be
discharged so that they will bring the original record.
The prayer of the learned Deputy Advocate
General is not opposed by the opposing counsel.
Accordingly, the witnesses present today are
discharged. Let fresh summons be issued for the date to
be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). Steps, if
any, be taken within fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
8th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in RSA No. 196 of 2021
RW-1 Statement of Shri Akshay Kaundal, aged 27
years presently posted as Patwari, Patwar
Circle Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh
On Oath
09.05.2024
Stated that I am posted as Patwari Patwar
Circle Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., from July, 2022.
The disputed land is owned by the State of Himachal
Pradesh and adjacent to the said land there is Shiv Temple
in the town of Baijnath. The said Shiv Temple is time
immortal. From the last many years temple Committee
use to conduct langar outside the temple near to disputed
land. Since the land is owned by the State Government
but State is not interfering in the suit land in any manner
after passing of the interim order by the Hon’ble Court.
The applicant (Manohar Lal) has constructed a Shed on
the disputed land. The State Government has never
received any user charges from Shri Manohar Lal
(applicant). The temple committee use to receive
voluntarily donations and the receipt to that effect is duly
issued by the Committee. During the time of fare whoever
use to put temporary stall upon the Government land then
they will have to pay the user charges for that. The
respondents have never violated the order of the Hon’ble
Court. I am holding the charge of area where the suit land
is situated. All the affairs of Government are in my
knowledge.
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in RSA No. 196 of 2021
xxx xxx Shri Atharv Sharma, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioner.
I am aware about the status quo order passed by
this Court in the present appeal. I am not aware about any
legal notice which was being served to the District
Collector, Kangra. It is correct that the photographs Mark
`A’ and `B’, is the land which is adjacent to the Shiv
Temple. The Shed which is apparent in the photograph
Mark `1A’ is on Khasra No. 1988/100/3 and the Shed
apparent in the photograph Mark `B’ is on Khasra
Number 1988/100/1. The Shed in photograph Mark `A’,
is Kitchen of the Shiv Temple and the Shed in photograph
Mark `B’, has been constructed by the applicant. It is
correct that the land which is shown in the photographs
Mark `A’ and `B’ is part of Khasra No. 1988/100. I am
not aware that the receipt Mark `M’, pertains to the
donation slip to the Shiv Mandir Temple. It is incorrect
that the respondent has intentionally and willfully violated
the order of the Court by interfering the peaceful
possession of the applicant.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
9th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in RSA No. 196 of 2021
Statement of Shri Tejasvi Sahrma, Additional
Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
09.05.2024
I give up Shri Harish Kumar, Tehsildar
Bamson (Tauni Devi) and Shri Chuni Lal, Supervisor,
Shiv Temple Baijnath being repetitive in nature and close
the evidence on behalf of the respondents.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
9th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 251 of 2023 in RSA No. 196 of 2021
09.05.2024
Present: Shri Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Tejasvi Sahrma, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondents.
Statement of Shri Akshay Kaundal, is recorded as
RW-1. Vide separate statement of the Ld. Additional
Advocate General, he has given up the remaining
witnesses and close the evidence on behalf of the
respondents.
Since the evidence is complete on behalf of the
parties, accordingly, the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 2831 of 2021 in RSA No. 511 of 2016
09.05.2024
Present: Shri Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for the non-
applicants-appellants.
Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for applicants-
respondents No. 1 and 2.
None for the other respondents.
Shri Kanshi Ram Thakur, is present today.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants-respondents
No. 1 and 2 is also present but learned vice counsel for
the non-applicant submits that the Senior Counsel Shri
Bhupinder Gupta, for the non-applicants-appellants is
busy in Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicants submits that he is waiting for the last one hour
and he has other cases in the court, therefore, he
submitted that the matter may be adjourned due to the
non-availability of the opposing counsel. Learned
Senior Counsel for the applicant further submits that he
will produce the applicant on the next date of hearing on
self responsibility.
Due to the non-availability of the opposing
counsel, the matter is adjourned for today. Let the
applicant be produced on the next date of hearing on self
responsibility for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
9th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 80 of 2010
13.05.2024
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Dhananjai Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for defendants No.1
and 2.
None for defendant No.3.
Shri B.C. Sharma and Plaintiff are present today.
However, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits
that issues regarding damages have been framed by the
Hon’ble Court on 14.07.2023, and in order to prove
those issues, certain documents are required to be placed
on record.
Learned senior counsel further submits that she
will move an appropriate application for bringing on
record those documents.
Learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 2 has
no objection to the request of the learned senior counsel
for the plaintiff. Therefore, the matter may be adjourned
for today.
Accordingly, the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court after filing the appropriate application by
the plaintiff.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 35 of 2022
PW-1 Statement of Shri Pritam Lal, aged 50 years
presently posted as Record Keeper, Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
14.05.2024
Stated that I am working as Record Keeper,
office of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh from 2023. I have
brought the requisitioned record. As per my record, FIR
No. 236 of 2024 registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin
District Bilaspur Ex. PW-1/A. Copy of the charges
against the accused persons is Ex. PW-1/B. Copy of the
Challan is Ex. PW-1/C. The statement of the witnesses
(PW-1 to PW-17) in the present Challan recorded by the
Court, is Ex. PW-1/D. The certified copy of the
judgment in the present Challan is Ex. PW-1/E. All the
above said documents are true and correct as per the
original record brought by me today (original seen and
returned).
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 35 of 2022
PW-2 Statement of Shri Lok Paul Thakur, aged 33
years presently posted as Criminal Ahlmad,
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal
Pradesh.
On Oath
14.05.2024
Stated that I am working as Criminal Ahlmad,
office of Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur from November 2023. I
have brought the original requisitioned record. As per my
record, the copy of bail order passed in Bail Application
No. 190/22/2014 was decided by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge Ghumarwin on 25.11.2014. The copy
of the same is Ex. PW-2/A. The copies of the Bail
Application Nos. 202/22 of 2014 to 204/22 of 2014
decided on 24.12.2014, by the Additional Sessions Judge
is Ex. PW-2/B. The copy of order dated 24.11.2015 in
Sessions Trial No. 22-7/2015 passed by Additional
District and Sessions Judge, is Ex. PW-2/C. The above
said documents are true and correct as per my record
(original seen and returned).
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 35 of 2022
PW-3 Statement of Shri C.R/ Bharti, aged 54 years
presently posted as Junior Assistant, Criminal
Section, High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
Shimla.
On Oath
14.05.2024
Stated that I am working as Junior Assistant, in
Criminal Branch, High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
Shimla from 2022. I have brought the original
requisitioned record. As per my record the copy of the
order dated 28.09.2015 in Cr. MMO No. 67 of 2015 and
Criminal Revision No. 278 of 2015 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court is Ex. PW-3/A and copy of the order dated
28.03.2016, in Cr. MMO No. 73 of 2016 is Ex. PW-3/B.
The above said documents are true and correct as per my
record (original seen and returned).
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
14th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 35 of 2022
14.05.2024
Present: Shri Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Karan Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiffs.
All the defendants are already ex-parte.
Statements of Shri Pritam Lal, Shri Lok Paul
Thakur and Shri C.R. Bharti are recorded as PW-1, PW-
2 and PW-3, respectively. Let the next three witnesses
mentioned in the list of witnesses be summoned for the
date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Steps, if any, be taken within fifteen days.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Election Petition No. 1 of 2023
14.05.2024
Present: Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.
Anita, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
Respondents No. 2 to 4 already ex-parte.
Respondent No.5, already deleted vide order
dated 11.10.2023 of the Hon’ble Court.
Admission and denial of the documents
has been done by respondent No.1 today. The
admission and denial of the documents filed by
respondent No.1 has already been done by the
petitioner on 30.04.2024.
Admission and denial of the documents
filed by the parties is complete. Accordingly, the
matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CARBC No. 7 of 2018
15.05.2024
Present: Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate, vice counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate for the respondent.
As per the office report, the confirmation
regarding Bank Guarantee No. 16090100011967,
dated 06.03.2024 for the period of 05.03.2024 to
31.03.2025, has been received and the same is taken
on record.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1169 of 2022 in RSA No. 31 of 2020
AW-1 Statement of Shri HC Rakesh No. 51, aged 43
years, I.O. Police Post Sarahan, Tehsil
Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
15.05.2024
Stated that I am posted as Incharge Police
Station Sarahan, Tehsil Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla
from 2019. I have brought the original requisitioned
record. On the complaint of Shri Raman Sharma S/o Shri
Hari Parkash Sharma, GD Entry No. 6, dated 25.07.2022,
was entered at Police Post Sarahan, District Shimla, under
my instruction which is Ex. AW-1/A. The said GD entry
is computer generated document. After the receipt of the
complaint, I visited the spot and the complainant informed
me that on the disputed land there were trees but I did not
find any tree on the said land. On my instruction, the
complainant Raman Sharma, clicked the photograph
Mark-`A’. I do not know whether any articles were
missing from the said Shed, however, some articles were
lying in the Shed apparent in photograph. The
complainant made a complaint that the respondent had
forcibly taken the apples from the tree but apparently I do
not found the allegation made by the complaint correct. I
have also made an inquiry from the other party but they
told me that the civil litigation is going on between them
in the Court and they will pursue the matter in the Court
accordingly. Thereafter, I came back to the Police Post
Sarahan and made GD Entry No.9, regarding my arrival
at Police Post Sarahan, which is Ex. AW-1/`B’.
CMP(M) No. 1169 of 2022 in RSA No. 31 of 2020
xxx xxx xxx Shri Raj Kumar Negi,
Advocate, for the respondent No.1.
It is correct that the Shed apparent in
photograph Mark-`A’, is an old structure.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
15th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1169 of 2022 in RSA No. 31 of 2020
15.05.2024
Present: Shri Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
Respondents No. 2 to 4 already ex-parte.
Statement of HC Rakesh, No. 51, I.O.,
Police Post Sarahan, is recorded as AW-1. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that he will produce
the applicant on the next date of hearing on self
responsibility.
Let the case be listed before Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of remaining
AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Arb. Case No. 15 of 2023
16.05.2024
Present: Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General, for the
petitioner.
Shri Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal with Ms. Swati
Verma, Advocate, for the respondents.
As per the office report, the undertaking
on behalf of the respondents has been filed by Shri
A.K. Mirchandani, General Attorney of the
respondents. The respondent has already filed the
Bank Guarantee dated 20th January, 2024, duly issued
by State Bank of India, SPL COMM Branch,
Chandigarh, SCO 103-106, Sector-17B, Chandigarh,
which has been duly verified by the concerned Bank.
The Bank Guarantee is accordingly
accepted. The undertaking subsequently furnished by
the respondent is taken on record. Let the needful be
done in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Court
dated 11.01.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
16th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 35 of 2014
17.05.2024
Present: Shri Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the
counter claimant-defendant.
None for non-counter claimant as they have been
already proceeded ex-parte.
As per the office report, the matter was
fixed for 16.05.2024 for evidence of the counter-
claimant on self responsibility, but due to some technical
error while listing the case matter could not be reflected
in the Cause List of 16.05.2024.
Accordingly, the matter is listed today
before the undersigned. Learned counsel for the counter-
claimant/defendant submits that the defendant/counter
claimant is not present today as he is not aware about the
today’s listing date and he seeks adjournment.
Since the case was not reflected in the cause
list of 16.05.2024, therefore, it is apparent that the same
was not within the knowledge of learned counsel or the
defendant-counter claimant, hence, the counter-claimant
could not be produced.
Accordingly, let the counter-claimant be
produce on self responsibility for the date to be fixed by
the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
17th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 409 of 2023 in RSA
AW-1 Statement of Shri Chet Ram S/o Nantia Ram,
aged 74,, R/o Village and Post Office Mundu,
Tehsil Tehog, District Shimla, H.P.
On Oath
17.05.2024
Stated that I am patient of heart and lungs and
my disease is continuing from 2006. At present I have
fracture in my leg also. I remained admitted in the IGMC
Shimla due to fracture in my leg from 16.07.2022 to
25.07.2022. The judgment and decree was passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum Special
Judge, CBI, Shimla, on 23.09.2020 but due to the CRONA
pandemic I could not contact my counsel at Shimla since I
was suffering from various ailments. My wife and children
were also suffering from ailments and due to the pandemic
I could not come out from my house for the safety of my
family. Due to the CRONA pandemic my family was also
in financial crises. Due to old age I could not contact my
Advocate at Shimla for filing the appeal, however, in the
year 2023, when I get respite all my family problems and
after arranging the Court Fee, I approached my counsel
immediately for filing the present appeal. On my
instructions the appeal alongwith the present application
was filed by my counsel on 26th April, 2023. The delay in
filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due
to my old age, my ailments, ailment of my wife and
children, CORONA pandemic as well as due to family
circumstance as my son is also lodged in Jail. There was
no one in the family to accompany me to the Advocate at
Shimla, as my house is in remote area and is about 150
Kms. away from Shimla. The copy of my discharge-cum-
follow up Card is Mark `A’. Copy of my Prescription
Slip are Mark `B’ and Mark `C’. Copies of the
Prescription Slip of my wife is Mark `D, and Copy of
Discharge-cum-follow up slip of my son having mental
disorder are Mark `E’ and Mark `F’.
CMP(M) No. 409 of 2023 in RSA
xxx xxx xxx Shri Tejasvi Sharma,
Additional Advocate General for
respondents No. 1 to 3
My treatment was going on in Shimla and
Chandigarh. It is correct that I have not placed on
medical record of Mark `A’ to Mark `F’. My Advocate
is stationed at Shimla. I was intimated by my counsel at
District Court immediately after the decision of the Lower
Appellate Court. It is incorrect that I was having ample
opportunities to meet my counsel at High Court of
Himachal Pradesh and to file the appeal well in time. It is
incorrect that I intentionally did not file the appeal well in
time. It is incorrect my grounds of application are
frivolous and I am deposing false today.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
17th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 409 of 2023 in RSA
Statement of Shri Chet Ram S/o Nantia Ram,
aged 74,, R/o Village and Post Office Mundu,
Tehsil Tehog, District Shimla, H.P.
Without Oath
17.05.2024
Stated that I do not want to examine any other
witness and close the applicants evidence.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
17th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 409 of 2023 in RSA
Statement of Shri Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Without Oath
17.05.2024
Stated that I do not want to lead any evidence
on behalf of the respondents-State.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
17th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 409 of 2023 in RSA
17.05.2024
Present: Shri Nishant Kiddtha, Advocate for the
applicants.
Shri Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, for respondents No. 1 to 3
Statement of Shri Chet Ram applicant is
recorded as AW-1. Vide his separate statement Shri
Chet Ram has closed the applicants evidence. Learned
Additional Advocate General vide his separate
statement stated that he does not want to lead any
evidence on behalf of the respondents-State.
Accordingly, the evidence on behalf of the
parties is complete and the matter may be listed before
the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
17th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2014
20.05.2024
Present: Shri Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the
plaintiff.
Shri Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, for the defendant
No.1.
None for defendant No.2
Witness Sh. Yugal Sharma is present today, however
the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has raised the
objection that the witness present today cannot be
examined since the plaintiff has not been examined till date
and in the event of non examination of the plaintiff, prior in
time, the other witnesses can not be examined.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the
plaintiff has to come today but due to some personal
difficulty he could not come to the Court for adducing
evidence. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submitted that he will produce the plaintiff on the next date
of hearing. Accordingly, the witness present today is
discharged.
Let the plaintiff be produced on the next date of
hearing on the self responsibility for the date to be fixed by
the Additional Registrar (J). The other witnesses will be
summoned thereafter only.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th May, 2024
(gaurav)
CMP No. 478 of 2023 in RSA
21.05.2024
Present: Shri Kshitij, Advocate ld. vice counsel of Mr.
Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
As per the office report the witness is required to be
produced on self responsibility today, however, learned
vice counsel for the applicant submit that due to ill health
of Smt. Usha Devi she could not come to Court to adduce
the evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant has also
placed on record the prescription slip of Smt. Usha Devi,
wherein, on 14.5.2024, Doctor has advised her ten days
rest (Copy of the prescription slip is taken on record).
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment for
today, to which learned counsel for the respondent has no
objection.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned. Let the
case be listed for AWs’ for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial)
List along with CMP No. 478 of 2023
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21st May, 2024
(gaurav)
CMP No. 478 of 2023 in RSA
21.05.2024
Present: Shri Kshitij, Advocate ld. vice counsel of Mr.
Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Sharm, Advocate for the respondent.
As per the office report the witness was required to
be produced on self responsibility today, however, learned
vice counsel for the applicant submit that due to ill health
of Smt. Usha Devi could not come to adduce the evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed on record
the prescription slip of Smt. Usha Devi, wherein, on
14.5.2024 Doctor has advised her ten days rest (Copy of
the prescription slip is taken on record). Learned counsel
for the applicant seeks adjournment for today to which
learned counsel for the respondent has no objection.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned. Let the
case be listed for AWs’ for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial)
List along with CMP No. 478 of 2023
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21st May, 2024
(gaurav)
Cr.MP(M) No. 1666 of 2023 in Cr.Rev.
22.05.2024
Present: Shri B.S.Atri, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Geeta Thakur, vice Ms.Madhurika Sekhon,
Advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is present today. However, learned vice counsel
for the respondent submits that the original counsel for the
respondent is out of station and seeks adjournment on the
ground of non-availability of the original counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection
qua the adjournment sought by the respondent.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned. Let the case be
listed for AWs’ for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial)
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
22nd May, 2024
(gaurav)
CMP No. 1059 of 2022 in RSA No. 633 of 2005
23.05.2024 Present:-
Shri Abhishek, Advocate, vice Ms. Rachna
Kuthiala, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Raman Sethi, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
Ms. Nisha, Advocate, vice Shri Karan Singh
Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
As per office report, steps i.e. PF, list of
witnesses and road and diet money have not been
deposited till date. Learned vice counsel for the
applicant-appellant seeks four weeks time for doing
the needful.
Let steps, if any, be taken within three
weeks, thereafter the process be issued for the service
of AWs for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1058 of 2022 in RSA No. 605 of 200523.05.2024 Present:-
Shri Abhishek, Advocate, vice Ms. Rachna
Kuthiala, Advocate, for the applicant.
Ms. Nisha, Advocate, vice Shri Karan Singh
Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Raman Sethi, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
As per office report, steps i.e. PF, list of
witnesses and road and diet money have not been
deposited till date. Learned vice counsel for the
applicant-appellant seeks four weeks time for doing
the needful.
Let steps, if any, be taken within three
weeks, thereafter the process be issued for the service
of AWs for the date to be fixed by the Additional
Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
23rd May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9957 of 2019 & CMP No. 13137 of 2019 in RSA No. 39 of 2019
24.05.2024 Present:-
Shri Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate vice
counsel for the applicants in CMP No. 13137
of 2019/ appellants.
Mr. Shri Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Shri Karan Sharma and Shri Virender Thakur,
Advocates, for applicants in CMP No. 9957 of
2019/respondents No. 1 to 4.
Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Legal Aid Counsel for
respondent No.2.
None for respondent No.3.
As per office report, steps for the
applicants witnesses in both the applications are not
taken by the parties. List of witnesses is still awaited.
Applicant in CMP No. 9957 of 2019 is present,
however, learned senior counsel for applicant in CMP
No. 9957 of 2019 submits that he has not brought the
entire original record today and requested that this
witnesses be discharged for today. Learned senior
counsel further submits that he will file the list of
witnesses within fifteen days and bring the witnesses
in CMP No. 9957 of 2019 on self responsibility.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant in
CMP No. 13137 of 2019 further submits that they will
file the list of witnesses within fifteen days and bring
the witnesses in CMP No. 13137 of 2019 on self
responsibility.
CMP No. 9957 of 2019 & CMP No. 13137 of 2019 in RSA No. 39 of 2019
Accordingly, the witness present today is
discharged. It is made clear that at the first instance
the matter be listed for recording the statement of
witnesses in CMP No. 9957 of 2019 and thereafter the
witnesses in the other CMP will be examined.
Let the matter be listed before the
Additional Registrar for fixing the date of AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2004It is humbly submitted that Criminal Appeal
Nos. 337 and 523 of 2004, were decided by this Hon’ble
Court by a common judgment dated 21.08.2007 and the
State of Himachal Pradesh, had filed two separate Special
Leave Petitions (Criminal) No. 9485 and 9486 of 2009,
before the Hon’ble Apex Court, challenging the said
judgment of this Court. As per the order dated 25.07.2016,
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, both the
SLPs were listed in the Chambers of Hon’ble Judge and the
following order was passed:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner is finally granted
one weeks’ time to comply with the office report dated
11.07.2016, failing which the special leave petition shall
stand dismissed against sole respondent in SLP(Crl.) No.
9486 of 2009 without further reference to the Court.”
The copy of the order dated 25.07.2016 is
annexed herewith as Annexure -A.
Thereafter, as per office report of the Assistant
Registrar, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 05.01.2016,
(copy of the office order is Annexure -B), in Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9486 of 2009, the Special Leave
Petition No. 9486 of 2009, stood dismissed as the counsel
for the petitioner did not take appropriate steps in compliance
to the order dated 25.07.2016.
Accordingly, SLP No. 9485 of 2009 only was
registered as Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2017 and vide
judgment dated 09.02.2022, Criminal Appeal No. 107 of
2017 arising out of the SLP (Criminal) No. 9485 of 2009 the
Hon’ble Apex Court remitted back the said Appeal to this
Hon’ble High Court.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that due
to inadvertence the connecting Criminal Appeal No. 523 of
2004, decided by this Hon’ble Court has been listed along
with Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2004, which has been
remanded back by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Dealing
Assistant has regretted the inconvenience caused to the
Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, the report is submitted, please.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25.05.2024
Note: The Court Master of the Hon’ble Court is requested to
apprise the Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the
matter.
Deputy Registrar (Judicial)
CMP(M) No. 1280 of 2022 in RFA
27.05.2024 Present:-
Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Shri Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
None for respondent No.2-State.
Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that he could not inform his client about
today’s date for their evidence. Learned counsel
seeks adjournment for today and ensure that he will
produce the applicants witnesses on self responsibility
on the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, the adjournment is granted
for today. Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date of AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th May, 2024
(Pritam)
Office submissions made hereinabove may kindly be perused.
It is humbly submitted that as per the direction of Your
Lordship dated 04/05/01.2024, at N/29, ante, the matter is
again required to be placed before Your Lordship. It is
further submitted that as per note at N/44/587 (Flag `B’),
Your Lordship was pleased to reject the candidature of the
representationist (Ms. Diksha Sharma) on 22.08.2023, and
the applications were invited for the post of Assistant
Librarian under mode (a) of the Recruitment and Promotion
Rules 2015, as the representationist was not fulfilling the
necessary qualification as per Rules ibid for the post of
Assistant Librarian i.e., Graduation with Post Graduation
Degree in Library Science.
Thereafter, the post of Assistant Librarian was again
advertised under mode-(b), but due to not possessing the
requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Librarian i.e.
Graduation with Post Graduation Diploma in Library Science
or any Post Graduation Degree in Library Science, none of
the candidates were found eligible for being considered for
the post under mode-(b).
Accordingly, vide order dated 21.12.2023, (Flag-X-1)
at N/642, Your Lordship has been pleased to reject the
candidature of Ms. Diksha Sharma and directed to invite the
applications for the post of Librarian under mode-(c) i.e. by
way of direct recruitment.
Now, the applicant (representationist) has submitted
Mark-Sheet of Master of Library Science, which is a
computer generated copy downloaded from IGNOU website
wherein it has been mentioned that “The status is
indicative only & cannot be used as a substitute for the
final grade card. The Final Grade Card will be issued
after completion of the Programme on updation of all
prescribed components.”
Thereafter, Ms. Diksha Sharma (representationist)
submitted a representation dated 27.12.2023, requesting to
fill the post of Assistant Librarian under mode (a) or (b) of the
R&P Rules, 2015 (i.e. from amongst the eligible employees
of the Registry) and not to fill the same under mode-(c) i.e.
by direct mode as the employee(s) are eligible in the
Registry for the aforesaid post.
It is further submitted that in compliance to N/642 at
Flag `X-1′, the Recruitment Branch has already advertised
the post of Assistant Librarian under mode (c) i.e. by way of
direct recruitment, vide advertisement No. HHC/Admn.2
(23)/82-XI, dated 18.01.2024 and the last date for filling up
the said post through online was 26.02.20224.
Since the post of Assistant Librarian has
already been advertised in compliance to the order of Your
Lordship at N/642 at Flag `X-1′, therefore, the representation
dated 27.12.2023, has become infructuous.
In view of the above, Lordship’s directions are
solicited as under:
A. Lordship may be pleased to order to reject the
representation under reference being devoid of meritOR
B. Any other directions as Your Lordship may deem fit
and proper in the matter.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28.05.2024
Hon’ble the Chief Justice
Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 a/w CS 108 of 2021
28.05.2024
Present: Shri Maan Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff
in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 and for non-
counter claimant in Counter Claim No. 108
of 2021.
Shri Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate, vice Shri
Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the
defendants in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 and
for counter claimants in Counter Claim No.
108 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the parties have made joint
request for adjournment of the cases as the witnesses are not
present today. As per previous orders, three opportunities
have already been granted for producing the plaintiff’s
witnesses on self responsibility.
Therefore, let the matter be listed before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 14361 of 2021 in RSA No. 492 of 2015
Statement of Shri Ramakant Sharma,
Advocate for the applicant.
Without Oath
29.05.2024
Stated that no other witnesses is required to be
examined further, therefore, I close the evidence on behalf
of the applicant.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
29th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 14361 of 2021 in RSA No. 492 of 2015
29.05.2024
Present: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
None for the respondents.
Vide separate statement, learned counsel for the
applicant has closed the evidence on behalf of the applicant.
As per the office report, despite order dated
15.12.2023 of the Hon’ble Court, the respondents have not
taken the steps till date. Therefore, let the matter be listed
before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
29th May, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 673 of 2023 in RSA
31.05.2024
Present: None for the applicant/State
Sh. Virender Singh Chauahn Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Arsh Chauahan for the respondent.
Sh. Ranjeet Singh AW-2 present in person
As per the office report, witness Sh. Ranjeet
Singh is present today. Despite repeated calls no Additional/
Deputy/ Assistant Advocate General appeared for getting
the statement recorded of the witness present today.
Therefore the undersigned has no option but to discharge
the witness today. Accordingly, the witness is discharged.
In view of the above, let the matter be listed in the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
31st May, 2024
(Gaurav)
Company Pet. No. 17 of 2014
10.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Drishti Sirswal, Advocate, vice Mr.
Balwant Kukreja, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General for the
State-respondent No.2.
None for respondents No. 3 to 73.
As per office report, proclamation of sale
of movable and immovable properties have been
published in the Indian Express (Chandigarh Edition)
dated 05.04.2024 and no report/communication
regarding the sale of properties has been received yet.
Moreover, there is no communication from
the Sale Marketing Manager (advertisement), Amar
Ujala, regarding the publication of notice in the said
Newspaper.
Accordingly, let the reminder be issued to
the Sale Marketing Manager (advertisement) Amar
Ujala Limited Timber House Shimla, regarding
submitting the report as to whether the proclamation
has been made in the said newspaper or not.
Let the reminder be also issued to the
Collector Solan as well as the Deputy Commissioner
Jallandhar qua submitting of the report of sale of
moveable and immovable properties in Company
Petition No. 17 of 2024, titled as Religare Finvest Ltd.
Vs. Ms. Pronto Stearing Ltd., and other.
Let the case be listed before the
undersigned on 15.07.2024.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th June, 2024
(Pritam)
COPC No. 106 of 2018
10.06.2024 Present:-
Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri
Sumit, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, for the
respondents.
As per office report, RW-1, Shri Ram Lal
and Civil Ahlmad, O/o Senior Civil Judge, Court No.2,
Chakkar, Shimla, are duly served.
Shri Nishant Pathania, Civil Ahlmad from
the office of Senior Civil Judge, Court No.2, Chakkar,
Shimla, is present. However, learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the documents, which
are required to be proved by this witness has not been
inadvertently placed on record and she will have to
apply the certified copy of the said documents for
proving the same in accordance with law. Learned
counsel for the respondents further submits that she
will move appropriate application for placing the said
documents on record and prayed for discharge of the
said witness for today. Learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that the other witness Shri
Ram Lal is also not present due to some unavoidable
circumstances.
Accordingly, the witnesses Shri Nishant
Pathania, is discharged for today. Let the case be
listed before the Hon’ble Court as and when the
appropriate application will be filed by the
respondents.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
10th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009AW-5. Statement of Shri Sarwan Kumar S/o
Late Shri Sardaru Ram, aged 67 years, R/o
Village Dholage Chaknar, P.O. Kalol, Tehsil
Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
11.06.2024
Stated that I have filed the present appeal i.e.
RSA No. 549 of 2009, in the High Court. I have filed an
application for the stay alongwith the said appeal, vide
order dated 23.11.2009, the Hon’ble Court directed the
parties to maintain status quo with respect to nature
possession and titled of the suit land. Thereafter, vide
order dated 25.03.2010, the Hon’ble Court appointed one
Local Commissioner to know the factual position of the
disputed land bearing Khasra No. 207/1. On the directions
of the Hon’ble Court Naibh Tehsildar Jhandutta visited the
spot and demarcated the land. Vide order dated
21.08.2013, the Hon’ble Court confirmed the interim
order dated 23.11.2009. Inspite of the stay order, the
respondent started to raise construction on the disputed
land on 31.01.2017. I made a request to the respondent
not to raise any construction over the disputed land but he
did not stop. Thereafter, on 01.02.2017, I made a
complaint to the SHO Police Station Tallai, which is
Mark `A’. On the same day SHO Police Station Tallai,
send Head Constable Tirth Ram to the spot and he found
that the respondent was doing the construction work on
the spot. After making of the inspection of the spot Head
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
Constable Tirth Ram asked the documents pertaining to
the said land from me and from the respondent. After
inspecting the documents on the spot Head Constable
Tirth Ram did not rely upon the documents produced by
me and told me that there is no stay, however, he relied
upon the documents produced by the respondents.
Thereafter, he pressurized me to enter into a compromise
with the respondents and wrote a compromise deed by his
hand. The compromise deed is Mark `B’. I appended my
signature’s on the compromise deed since I was
pressurized by Head Constable Tirth Ram and my
signature is Ex. PW-5/A on compromise deed Mark `B’.
Thereafter, Head Constable left the spot and went back to
Police Station. Thereafter, in order to resolve the dispute I
requested the respondent to make the construction work
on the disputed land but the respondent did not allow me
to do the work. Thereafter, I again made a complaint SHO
Police Station Tallai on 02.02.2017, which is Mark `C’.
Though, the SHO Police Station Tallai assured me that
they are coming to the spot but they did not come to the
spot. The respondent carried on his construction work
pertaining to raising of the walls and laid the lentil on the
structure raised on the disputed land. Thereafter, I filed
one application Mark `D’, under Right to Information Act
to the SHO Police Station, Tallai and he provided me the
documents which were asked by me in my application and
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
the same are Mark `E’, Mark `F’, Mark `G’ and Mark
`H’. The respondent did not stop his work, however, he
also made one application to the District Magistrate,
which is Mark `E’. On my application dated 02.02.2017
Mark `C’ and the application filed by respondent Mark
`D’, Head Constable Tirth Ram again visited the spot on
03.04.2017 and recorded the statement of the respondent
but he did not recorded my statement. The Police has
given the wrong report against me which was not
according to the factual position. The respondent has
intentionally and willfully disobeyed of the stay order of
the Hon’ble Court, therefore, he be dealt with in
accordance with law.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Sharwan Dogra, Senior
Advocate with Shri Bharat Thakur, Advocate
for the respondents.
It is correct that I had filed the suit pertaining to
Khasra No. 207/1. It is correct that the stay order granted
by the High Court is also pertaining to the same Khasra
Number. It is incorrect that Khasra No. 210 abuts to
Khasra No. 207/1. It is correct that Khasra No. 207/2 is
abutting to Khasra No. 207/1. Khasra No. 207/2 is owned
by me. Khasra No. 207/3 is owned by the respondent.
Both the Khasra No. 207/2 and Khasra No. 207/3 are
abutting to Khasra No. 207/1. It is correct that adjacent to
Khasra No. 207/3 there is one another Khasra No. 526/208
which also belongs to respondent. It is incorrect that the
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
boundary of Khasra No. 526/208 is not touching with
Khasra No. 207/1. It is correct that boundary of Khasra
No. 526/208 is abutting to Khasra Nos.207/3 and 525/208.
It is correct that the respondent is raising whatever
construction is on Khasra No. 526/208. Self stated that
there is also stay pertaining to Khasra No. 526/208 for
which separate RSA is pending adjudication before the
High Court. It is incorrect that the respondent is not
raising any construction on Khasra No. 207/1, which is the
subject matter of the present RSA. It is incorrect that at
the time of demarcation all the Khasra Numbers were not
identified by the Revenue Agency. It is incorrect that I
use to file the vague applications before the Police
Authorities just to harass the respondent. It is incorrect
that I am deposing false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
Statement of Shri Rahul Mahajan, Advocate,
for the applicant.
Without Oath
11.06.2024
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of
applicant since the list of witness has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
Statement of Shri Bharat Thakur, Advocate, for
the respondents.
Without Oath
11.06.2024
Stated that I do not want to lead any evidence
on behalf of the respondents and close the evidence.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
11th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 9572 of 2017 in RSA No. 549 of 2009
11.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the
applicant-appellant.
Shri Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with
Shri Bharat Thakur, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Statement of Shri Sarwan Kumar is
recorded as AW-5, vide separate statement. Learned
counsel for the applicant has closed the evidence on
behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel for the
respondents vide separate statement has stated that he
does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of the
respondents.
Accordingly, the evidence is complete.
Let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
11th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 68 of 2020
12.06.2024 Present:-
Ms. Nisha, Advocate, vice Shri Karan Singh
Kanwar, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Defendants already ex-parte.
Vide order dated 20.11.2023, Hon’ble
Court has granted one more opportunity for taking the
steps for PWs. Thereafter, the matter was listed before
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for taking steps for the
plaintiff evidence thrice, but steps were not taken by
the plaintiff. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.04.2024,
Additional Registrar (Judicial) ordered to produce the
plaintiff on self responsibility. But none appeared
today for adducing the evidence.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed before
the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
12th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2016AW-1
Statement of Shri Narinder Kumar S/o Late
Shri Suraj Prakash, aged about 51 years, R/o
House No. 341, Uppar Dhalpur, Near Bhart-
Bharti School Dhalpur, Tehsil and District
Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
13.06.2024
Stated that Smt. Krishan Devi is my mother. I
am conversant with the litigation pending adjudication in
the High Court, which has been filed by my mother. My
mother has filed a contempt petition against the
respondents. I have clicked the photographs which are
annexed with the application with my mobile phone,
`Mark-A to Mark-C’. I am tendering the certificate
under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding
the clicking of the above said photographs with my mobile
phone and the same are factulally correct. The certificate
is Ex. AW-1/A. After clicking the photographs from my
mobile I got them developed from photographer Shri
Pankaj whose photo studio is at Dhalpur.
Xxx xxx xxx Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri,
Advocate, for the respondents.
I have kept the clicked photographs Mark `A’
to March `C’ in my mobile phone. I have not placed on
record the original electronic record regarding clicking of
CMP No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2016
the said photographs in the present case. It is correct that
there is no mention of date and time on the photographs
from which it could be ascertained on which date and at
what time they have been clicked. It is incorrect that the
photographs Mark `A’ to Mark `C’, is not as per the
factual position existing on the spot. It is correct that in
photographs Mark `D-1 to D-4, are of the spot in which
my house is apparent behind the brick wall, having
greenish colour.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
13th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2016
AW-2
Statement of Shri Pankaj S/o Late Shri
Subhash, aged about 40 years, R/o Pankaj
Photo Studio, Dhalpur, Tehsil and District
Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
13.06.2024
Stated that I have a photo studio in the name of
Pankaj Photo Home Studio at Dhalpur, Kullu and our
photo studio is in existence for the last 50 years. Prior to
me my father use to run that photo studio. Shri Narender
Kumar is not personally known to me, however, he came
to my studio as a customer in the year 2022. Shri
Narender had given me his phone for connecting it with
the computer and to take out the prints of the photographs
clicked by him in his mobile. I have developed the
photographs Mark `A’ to Mark `C’, which are Ex. AW-
2/A, Ex. Aw-2/B and Ex. Aw-2/C. (Bbjected to on the
mode of proof).
Xxx xxx xxx Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri,
Advocate, for the respondents.
Whenever some customer use to come for
taking the printouts of the photographs I use to charge
them as per the relevant prices. I also use to give the
receipt of the payment whenever some customer demands
the receipt. Ordinarily, I use to take about 50 printouts of
CMP No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2016
the photographs of the customers. I do not use to maintain
any record of the customers. I have not issued any receipt
to Shri Narender Kumar, since he has not demanded it. I
cannot provide the names of the customers who visited in
my studio in the year 2022. It is correct that there is
nothing on the photographs from which it could be
inferred that the printout of the same has been taken from
my studio. I have not kept the record in my computer
regarding the photographs Ex. Aw-2/A to AW-2/C. Prior
to the visiting of Shri Narender Kumar one person from a
village came for the printouts of the photographs and after
Shri Narender Kumar I took out passport photos of a
person . I do not remember the names of the said person
who visitited priot to and after Narender Kumar. I did not
came to Shimla alongwith Shri Narender Kumar today. I
met him outside the Court only. After receiving the
summons in this case I did not contact Shri Narender nor I
saw the above said photographs in his mobile. It is
incorrect that I have not taken out the printouts of the
above said photographs. It is incorrect that I am deposing
false on the asking of Shri Narender Kumar.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
13th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2016
AW-3
Statement of Shri Sachin Thakur, S/o Shri
Prem Singh Thakur, aged about 29 years,
Junior Engineer, Municipal Council Kullu,
District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
13.06.2024
Stated that I have brought the original
requisitioned record. I am working in the office of
Municipal Council Kullu from August, 2022. Smt.
Krishan Devi has filed one complaint through his son
Manoj Kumar in the Municipal Council Kullu against
Pushpa Devi. As per my record Smt. Krishna Devi has
filed the said complaint on 09.09.2022. On the said
complaint Executive Officer of Municipal Council Kullu
issued a notice to Smt. Pushpa Devi, Dhan Raj, Avneesh
and Seema, on 06.12.2022. Smt. Pushpa Devi had
submitted the Map of her house for the approval by the
Municipal Council Kullu and the same has been approved
by the Municipal Council on 23.05.2022. I alongwith
Supervisor also visited the spot where the construction
was being raised by Pushpa Devi. As per my observation
Smt. Pushpa Devi has deviated from the approved map.
Thereafter, Muncipal Council Kullu issued notice to Smt.
Pushpa Devi for removal of the construction raised by her
beyond approved map. Smt. Pushpa Devi and others co-
CMP No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2016
owners have applied for the revised plan to Muncipal
Council Kullu on 26.12.2022. The said revised plan is
pending for approval in our office.
Xxx xxx xxx Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri,
Advocate, for the respondents.
It is correct that the building plan approved by
the Municipal Council pertains to the construction on the
land of Smt. Pushpa and other co-owners. The notice
regarding removal of the unauthorized structure was given
to Smt. Pushpa Devi after making the measurement on the
spot. Smt. Pushpa Devi has applied for the revised map
for which she has made deviation from the earlier
approved map. It is correct that Municipal Council has the
power to compound 10% deviation of the approved map.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
13th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 1227 of 2022 in RSA No. 144 of 2016
13.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Tek Chand, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that they have deposited an amount of Rs. 5000/- in
compliance to the order date 20.12.2023, and the
receipt is appended with the list of witnesses.
Statements of Shri Narender Kumar, Shri
Pankaj and Shri Sachin Thakur, are recorded as AW-1
to Aw-3, respectively. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant could not come to
the court due to illness and she will be produced on the
next date of hearing on self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date for remaining
AWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
13th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 139 of 2022
14.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Aakash Thakur Advocate, vice Shri Arjun
Lal, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Shri Prateek Pal, Advocate, vice Shri Vivek
Sharma, Advocate, for the defendant.
As per office report, steps for summoning
of plaintiffs witnesses have not been taken. Learned
vice counsel for the plaintiffs submits that he will
produce the plaintiffs witnesses on self responsibility.
Let the case be listed before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the date for
PWs.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
14th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1315 of 2022 in RSA No. 104 of 2021
15.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Shri Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri Atul G. Sood, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Applicant is present today. However,
learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that
they have moved the application under Order XVI
Rule 1 (3), read with Section 151 of CPC for
examination of one more witness, which has not been
mentioned in the list of witnesses. Learned Senior
Counsel further submits that before examining the
applicant, the application is required to be decided.
Since the above said application (CMP
9033 of 2024) is on record, therefore, at the first
instance let the said application be listed before the
Hon’ble Court. The applicant/witness present today is
discharged.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
15th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 753 of 2024 in RSA No. 112 of 201817.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Gaurav Chaudhary, Advocate vice
Ms. Shweta Joolka, Advocate, for the applicantShri Rohit and Shri Subhash Chander,
Advocates vice Shri Dushyant Dadwal,
Advocate for the respondent.
Learned vice counsel for the respondent
submits that the respondent/contemnor Shri Rajesh
Sood, has expired, therefore, no fruitful purpose will
be served by examining the witnesses.
As per office report, witness Atul Sharma
and Ishwar Dass Dogra are duly served and other
witness Shri Ravinder Kumar has refused to take the
service and non is present today.
Since the contemnor has expired,
therefore, let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble
Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
17th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP No. 3307 of 2020 in RSA No. 242 of 201518.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Anil Kapoor, Advocate, vice Shri Nimish
Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Karun Negi, Advocate, for the
respondents.
As per office report, steps for applicants
witnesses have not been taken and the evidence is
required to be produced on self responsibility today.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant
submits that the witnesses are not present and they
shall be produced on self responsibility on the next
date of hearing.
In the meanwhile, list of witnesses be
furnished within one week and the CMP No. 823 of
2024 be listed before the Hon’ble Court for
appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
18th June, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 11 of 201919.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate, vice Ms. Shalini
Thakur, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Shri
Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for defendants No. 1
and 2, along with Shri Ramesh Chand,
defendant No.1.
Shri Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, for defendant No. 3.
The remaining plaintiffs evidence are to
be produced on self responsibility but learned vice
counsel for the plaintiffs submits that due to their ill
health, the witnesses could not come to the Court for
adducing their evidence. Learned vice counsel seeks
adjournment for today.
Accordingly, the adjournment sought for is
allowed. Let the remaining PWs be produced on
self responsibility on the next date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
19th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 126 of 202220.06.2024 Present:-
Shri Aman Thakur, Advocate, vice Shri Arun
Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
None for the defendants.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the plaintiff has expired and they will
move the appropriate application for bringing on
record the LRs of the plaintiff. Therefore, no
witness is present today.
Let the case be listed before the Hon’ble
Court as and when the application for brining on
record the LRs of the plaintiff will be filed.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
20th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 19 of 201421.06.2024
Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri H.S. Upadhaya, Advocate, for defendant/
counter claimant.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that despite information to the witness Shri Vikas
Jain (PW-3), he has not turned up for his cross
examination. Learned counsel further submits that
this witness has shown his inability to come to
Shimla today for the reasons best known to him.
Since the cross examination of this
witness is deferred from the year 2019 on one
pretext or the other and despite last opportunity he
did not come for his cross examination. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the other
witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses can be
examined after the cross examination of Shri Vikas
Jain (PW-3), if required.
In that eventuality, the undersigned has
no other option but to list the case before the
Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders. Accordingly,
the matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
21st June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 in RSA
AW-2
Statement of Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, S/o
Shri Jai Shiv Prakash aged about 36 years,
Village Dhanroti, P.O. Purag, Tehsil Kotkhai,
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
24.06.2024
Stated that I had been working with Late Shri
Gulzar Singh Rathore, Advocate since 2014. One Shri Raj
Kumar came to our office during the life time of Shri
Gulzar Rathore in the 2nd week of January, 2020. Due to
the winter vacation in the High Court Shri Gulzar Rathore,
called that client after winter vacation in the month of
March, 2020. Thereafter, due to the detection of Cancer to
Late Shri Gulzar Singh Rathore, Advocate, he did not
come to his Chambers. Thereafter, as per the advice of
Shri Gulzar Singh Rathore, Advocate, client Shri Raj
Kumar came to our Chambers in the month of March,
2020. I informed Shri Raj Kumar that due to ill health of
Shri Gulzar Singh Rathore, he is not coming to the Court
as well as his Chambers. I also informed Shri Raj Kumar
that as and when Shri Gulzar Singh Rathore, will come to
the Court as well as his Chambers, you will be informed
accordingly. Thereafter, due to the outbreak of CRONA
pandemic, we did not contact Shri Raj Kumar. On
17.03.2021, Shri Gulzar Singh Rathore, expired. I did not
contact Shri Raj Kumar in between March, 2020 to March,
2021. After the death of Gulzar Rathore, Shri Raj Kumar
CMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 in RSA
came to his chambers in December, 2021 and met me. He
asked from the as to why Shri Gulzar Rathore is not
picking up his phone then I informed him about the death
of Shri Gulzar Singh Rathore. Shri Gulzar Rathore was
having his office at Vidhi Nikunj. When Shri Raj Kumar
contacted me after the death of Shri Guzar Rathore, I tried
to search his file in his office but I could not find the same
in the Chambers. I also informed Shri Raj Kumar that
some files were being placed by Shri Gulzar Rathore in
his office at home and that file may be in his home. When
I shifted the office of Shri Gulzar Rathore to my chambers
at Sita Bhawan near Jodha Niwas Jakhoo, then I traced out
the file of Shri Raj Kumar in August, 2022. Thereafter, I
telephonically informed Shri Raj Kumar about the tracing
of his file. In the month of August, 2022, Shri Raj Kumar
came to my chambers and took his file with him.
Xxx xxx xxx Shri Surinder Saklani,
Advocate, for the respondents.
I am practicing as an Advocate since 2014 with
Shri Gulzar Rathore. Shri Gulzar Rathore was having
two junior except myself. Self stated that I was handling
his work in the High Court only after 2016. I have not
gone through the file which was handed over by Shri Raj
Kumar to Shri Gulzar Rathore. It is correct that during
winter vacation the Registry and filing is open. I do not
know why Shri Gulzar Rathore had called Raj Kumar
after vacation. Self stated that Shri Gulzar Rathore use to
go to Channai alongwith his wife for the treatment of his
wife. When Shri Raj Kumar visited our office in the
month of Marcdh, 2020, at that time the Cancer was
detected to Shri Gulzar Rathore and due to which I
informed Shri Raj Kumar that as and when he will come,
he will inform you. During the treatment of Shri Gulzar
Rathroe I use to see his cases in the Court. Self stated that
during that time no fresh cases were being filed from the
office of Shri Gulzar Rathore or on his behalf. I use to
bring the case files which were being listed in the Court
and which were kept by Shri Gulzar Rathore in his office
at Vidhi Nikunj. However, the files which were kept by
Shri Gulzar Rathore in his home office were not brought
to the Court. It is correct that the files which were in the
office at Vidhi Nikunj were easily available for bringing it
to the court and I have easy access to them for bringing it
to the Court. It is correct that in December, 2021, Shri Raj
Kumar met me in Vidhi Nikunj Chambers of Shri Gulzar
Rathore. It is correct that at that the present matter was
not filed in the Court. Self stated that I tried to trace the
file but could not find at that time. Shri Raj Kumar never
disclosed about the pendency of any Execution Petition in
the trial Court. It is incorrect that Shri Gulzar Rathore
never asked Shri Raj Kumar to come in the month of
March, 2020. It is incorrect that the file was readily
available in the office. It is incorrect that I am deposing
false.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
24th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 in RSA
24.06.2024
Present: Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Shri Surinder K. Saklani, Advocate, for the
respondents.
State of Shri Sunil Kumar is recorded as
AW-2. Learned counsel for the applicant vide his
separate statement has closed the evidence on behalf
of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondents
seeks time for RWs. Let the steps be taken within
fifteen days, thereafter the process be issued for
service of RWs for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial)
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
24th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Statement of Shri Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate,
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
Without Oath
24.06.2024
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant since the list of witness has been exhausted.
RO&AC
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
24th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 794 of 2024 in RSA No. 148 of 2007
25.06.2024
Present: Mr. Abhishek, Advocate vice Ms. Rachna
Kuthiala, Advocate, for the applicant.
None for the respondents.
As per office report, steps i.e. list of
witnesses, road and diet money for service of the
witnesses has not been filed by the applicant.
Learned vice counsel for the applicant seeks some
more time for doing the needful.
Let the steps be taken within fifteen days,
thereafter the process be issued for service of AWs
for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 111 of 2021
25.06.2024
Present: Shri Rohit, Advocate, vice Shri Sumit Sood,
Advocate, for the plaintiffs
None for defendants No. 1 to 6.
As per office report, the matter was listed
for plaintiff’s evidence but subsequently, a report has
been received that the plaintiff has moved an
application under Order XVIII Rule 3A, read with
Section 151 CPC for permitting the plaintiff to
adduce evidence at the later stage after the
examination of the other witnesses.
As per the report of the Dealing
Assistant, summons to the other witnesses could not
be issued due to inadvertence, therefore, no
witnesses are present today.
Since an application under Order XVIII
Rule 3A CPC, has been filed by the plaintiff,
therefore, at the first instance, the same may be listed
before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
25th June, 2024
(Pritam)
OMP No. 620 of 2009 in Civil Suit No. 66 of 1998
26.06.2024
Present: Shri Mehar Chand, Advocate, for the non-
applicant.
Shri Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, vice
Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
applicants.
As per office report, steps for applicants
evidence are not taken by the applicant. Learned
vice counsel for the applicant submits that they will
file the list of witnesses and bring the evidence on
self responsibility.
Accordingly, let the list of witnesses on
behalf of the applicant be filed within fifteen days
and the witnesses be produced on self responsibility
for the date to be fixed by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
26th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 4085 of 2013
27.06.2024
Present: Shri Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with
Shri Dev Raj, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Shri Pranjal Munjal, Advocate vice counsel for
the defendant.
As per office report, plaintiff’s witnesses
at Sl. No. 3 and 7 are duly served and PW at Sl.
No.6, is reported to be un-served for the want of
correct address. Witnesses Shri Sunil Suman and
Shri Neeraj Kumar, Manager Blue Dart are present.
Learned vice counsel for the defendant
submits that the Senior Counsel is out of station due
to demise of his father and he seeks adjournment on
that ground. Adjournment sought by the learned
vice counsel for the defendant is not opposed by the
learned senior counsel for the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for
today. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further
submits that the witness Shri Neeraj Kumar has not
brought the original requisitioned record today due
to which the documents which are required to be
proved may not be proved in accordance with law.
Hence, the witnesses present today are
discharged. Let the correct address of PW
mentioned at Sl. No.6 in the list of witnesses be filed
within fifteen days and the witnesses who are present
today be summoned again along with the witness
mentioned at Sl. No.6 for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
27th June, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 13 of 2020
28.06.2024
Present: Shri Sidhant Maniktala, Advocate, vice counsel
for the plaintiff.
Shri Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate
General for the respondents-State.
As per office report, the plaintiff was
required to be produced on self responsibility today
for adducing his evidence, however, learned vice
counsel for the plaintiff submits that due to some
personal difficulty he could not come to the Court
today.
Learned vice counsel for the plaintiff
seeks adjournment for today. Granted.
Let the case be listed before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) for fixing the next date for
plaintiff’s evidence, who shall be produced on self
responsibility.
Paras Doger
Registrar (Judicial)
28th June, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023
AW-1
Statement of Shri Jaram Singh, S/o Shri
Munshi Ram, aged about 68 years, Village
Sapera, P.O. Boh, Tehsil Shahpur, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
01.07.2024
Stated that I illiterate. The respondent Babu
Ram had filed a Civil Suit against me before the trial
Court, which was decreed by the trial Court. Thereafter, I
filed an appeal before the first appellate Court at
Dharamshala, which was decided on 05.01.2022. I could
not file the present appeal before the Hon’ble High Court
in time because my Advocate at Dharamshala did not
inform me about the decision of the appeal at
Dharamshala. I received a notice for possession on
13.03.2023, issued by the Revenue Officer, on which I
came to know that my appeal has been decided by the
Appellate Court at Dharamshala. Thereafter I contacted
my Advocate at Dharamshala but he informed me that my
case is still pending and the dates are being fixed by the
Court. He also took fees from me. Thereafter, I contacted
another Advocate to know the status of my case on which
I came to know that my appeal at Dharamshala, had
already been decided on 05.01.2022. Thereafter, I took
the record pertaining to my case from the Advocate which
was engaged by me at Dharamshala. Thereafter, I came to
Shimla in the month of March, 2023, and handed over all
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023
the documents to the Counsel at Shimla for filing the
appeal. Accordingly, my Advocate at Shimla filed the
appeal on 24.03.2023. There was neither any willful or
intentional delay on my part and the delay, if any, is due to
the above stated reasons.
Xxx xxx xxx Shri Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate,
for non-applicant/ respondent.
It is correct that Shri Babu Ram is owner of the
disputed land. I am owner of four vehicles. I have three
sons. My eldest son is 8th pass. MY second son is 10 th
pass and my youngest son is 12 th pass. It is incorrect that I
have installed a sawmill on the disputed land. It is
incorrect that my counsel at Dharamshal informed me
about the dismissal of the appeal on 05.11.2022. It is
correct that I have not applied certified copy of the
decision of the Appellant Court at Dharamshal, however, I
have collected all the documents from my Advocate at
Dharamshala. It is correct that my counsel had filed one
CMPMO before the Hon’ble High Court against the
warrant of possession. It is incorrect that I have
intentionally not filed the appeal well in time. I do not
know that in the Execution Petition 2 of 2020 pending
adjudication before the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Dharamshala, my counsel had sought the time for filing
the objections when the case was listed in that Court in the
year 2021. It is incorrect that I was well aware about all
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023
the decisions of my case in the Courts and just to harass
the respondent and delay the possession, I filed the present
appeal and the CMPMO in the High Court.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
1st July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023
Statement of Shri Goldy Kumar, Advocate,
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
Without Oath
01.07.2024
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant since the list of witnesses has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
1st July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP(M) No. 285 of 2023
01.07.2024
Present: Shri Goldy Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for the non-
applicant.
Statement of Shri Jaram Singh is
recorded as AW-1. Learned counsel for the
applicant vide his separate statement has closed the
evidence on behalf of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the
non-applicant/respondent seeks time for Rws. Let
the steps, if any, be taken within fifteen days,
thereafter the process be issued for the service of
Rws returnable for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
1st July, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2021
02.07.2024
Present: Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with
Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate along with
plaintiff Shri Karan Verma.
Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate vice Shri V.D.
Khidtta, Advocate for the defendants.
As per the office report, summons issued
to PWs mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 in the list of
witnesses are duly served. Shri Yog Raj, Record
Keeper from the office of District Judge, Shimla and
Ms. Anju Sharma, Civil Ahlmad from the office of
Civil Judge Court No.6, Shimla are present.
Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the plaintiff is required to be examined
after the examination of the official witnesses since
his statement is based upon the official record which
is to be produced and proved by the other official
witnesses. Therefore, learned senior counsel seeks
adjournment for the examination of the plaintiff
today.
Learned senior counsel further submits
that he will move the appropriate application under
Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC for the exemption of
examining the plaintiff at the first instance.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned and
the same be listed before the Hon’ble Court as
Civil Suit No. 86 of 2021
and when the appropriate application will be filed by
the plaintiff. The witnesses present today are also
discharged for today.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd July, 2024
(Pritam)
Civil Suit No. 62 of 2005
02.07.2024
Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Shri Tawarsu, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Defendants No. 2 and 3 already ex-parte.
Suit against defendants No. 4 to 6 stand
dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2003.
Shri Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for defendant
No.7.
As per the office report, list of witnesses
and process fee have been filed, however, diet money
has not been deposited.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that they will deposit the diet money within a week.
Accordingly, after the depositing the diet
money let PW at Sl. No.1, in the list of witnesses be
summoned for 26.09.2024.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
2nd July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021
AW-3
Statement of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Patwari,
Patwar Circle Jahu, Tehsil Bhoranj, District
Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
03.07.2024
Stated that presently I posted as Patwari,
Patwar Circle Jahu, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur,
H.P. from August, 2022. I have brought the original
requisitioned record. Legal heir certificate Ex AW-3/A,
has been duly issued by me under my signature on
28.06.2022, which is true and correct as per the original
record brought by me (original seen and returned).
xxx xxx xxx Shri Atharv Sharma, Advocate,
for non-applicant/respondents No. 1 to 3.
Opportunity given. Nil.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Nitin Rishi, Advocate, vice
Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, for
respondent No.8.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021
AW-4
Statement of Shri Raj Kumar, S/o Shri Sita
Ram, aged about 47 years R/o Village Jahu
Khurad Tappa Mewa, P.O. Jahu, Tehsil
Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
03.07.2024
Stated that I came to know about the death of
Shri Ram Krishan when I received the letter from my
Advocate at Shimla whereby he informed me that Shri
Ram Krishan has been reported to have been died by the
process serving agency. My counsel at Shimla asked me
to procure the Death Certificate and Legal heir certificate
from the Secretary Gram Panchayat Jahu and send it
immediately to him. I immediately went to Secretary
Gram Panchayat Jahu but due to the strike of the
Secretaries of the Gram Panchayats at that relevant time, I
could not procure the Death and legal heir certificate from
the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, I went to the concerned
Patwari of Jahu, who issued legal heir certificate Ex. PW-
3/A to me. Thereafter, I handed over the same to my
counsel, who filed the appropriate application before the
Court.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Atharv Sharma, Advocate,
for non-applicant/respondents No. 1 to 3.
The distance between my house and Ram
Krishan house is about 3 Kms. Self stated that Shri Ram
Krishan use to stay in the village, however, I have
CMP (M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021
constructed my house in District Bilaspur. I do not
remember the dates when the strike of Secretaries of the
Gram Panchayat was going on. It is incorrect that I was
well aware about the death of Shri Ram Krishan but I have
intentionally not informed my Advocate regarding the
death of Shri Ram Krishan.
xxx xxx xxx Shri Nitin Rishi, Advocate, vice
Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, for
respondent No.8.
Opportunity given. Nil.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021
Statement of Shri Raj Kumar, S/o Shri Sita
Ram, aged about 47 years R/o Village Jahu
Khurad Tappa Mewa, P.O. Jahu, Tehsil
Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
Stated that I close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant, since the list of witnesses has been exhausted.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 963 of 2022 in RSA No. 195 of 2021
03.07.2024
Present: Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Shri
Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Athrav Sharma, Advocate, for respondents
No. 1 to 3.
Shri Nitin Rishi, Advocate, vice Shri Ashwani
Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.8.
Statement of Shri Rajesh Kumar and Shri
Raj Kumar are recorded as AW-3 and AW-4,
respectively. Vide separate statement, the applicant
Shri Raj Kumar has close the evidence on behalf of the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondents
seeks time for Rws.
Let the steps, if any, be taken within
fifteen days thereafter the process be issued for service
of RWs returnable for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
3rd July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 891 of 2022 in RSA No. 46 of 2017
RW-1
Statement of Shri Bhupender Kumar, Patwari,
Patwar Circle Khaneol Bagra, P.O. Khaneol
Bagra, Tehsil Karson, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
On Oath
04.07.2024
I am working as Patwari, Patwar Circle
Khaneol Bagra, from November 2021. I have brought the
original requisitioned record. As per the latest revenue
record, i.e. Jamabandi Ex. AW-1/A, Khasra No. 1658 is
in the ownership of different co-owners. Shri Pitamber,
Shri Bhupender and Shri Khem Raj are also co-owners of
the said Khasra number. Late Shri Gopi Chand was also
one of the co-owner of the said Khasra number and now
his legal heirs has been entered in his place after his death.
As per the record, Shri Pitamber, Shri Bhupender and Shri
Khem Raj inherited property in Khasra nuymber 1658
from their forefathers. Khasra No.. 1658 is joint property
of all the co-owners. Original seen and returned.
xxx xxx xxx Shri G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for
the applicants.
It is correct that as per the revenue record Shri
Purshotam is one of the co-owner of Khasra No. 1720, of
the property situated at Mohal Shauhat, Tehsil Karsog,
District Mandi. It is correct that as per revenue record
Shri Purshotam has executed a will in favour of Shri
CMP (M) No. 891 of 2022 in RSA No. 46 of 2017
Pitamber Lal, Shri Bhupender and Shri Khem Raj. Self
stated that Khasra No. 1720 is also a joint property.
R.O. & A.C.
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th July, 2024
(Pritam)
CMP (M) No. 891 of 2022 in RSA No. 46 of 2017
04.07.2024
Present: Shri G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri O.P. Chauhan Advocate with Ms. Shikha
Chauhan and Shri Khushi Ram Verma,
Advocates, for the respondents.
Statement of Shri Bhupender Kumar
Patwari, is recorded as RW-1. As per the office report,
the summons issued for the service of witness
mentioned at Sl. No. 2, is duly served.
Learned counsel for the respondents
submits that they have been telephonic ally informed
by the witness at Sl. No.1 that due to heavy rainfall
and blockade of road he could reach the Court today.
Therefore, learned counsel seeks adjournment for
recording his statement.
Accordingly, the adjournment is granted.
Let the witness at Sl. No. 1 be produced on self
responsibility for the date to be fixed by the
Additional Registrar (Judicial).
(Paras Doger)
Registrar (Judicial)
4th July, 2024
(Pritam)
COMS No. 3 of 2023
PW-1
Statement of Shri Shashank Jhawar S/o Shri
Ashok Kumar Jhawar, aged 33 years, R/o B-
250, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
On Oath
05.07.2024
Stated that I am Special Power of Attorney
Holder of my uncle Shri Anand Raj Jhawar and I have
been duly authorized vide Special Power of Attorney
Ex.PW-1/A, to represent my uncle and to adduce on his
behalf in the present case. The R.R. Agrotech., had
entered into an agreement Ex.PW-1/B (four leaves) with
the defendants. The terms and conditions of the
agreement are in the entered in e-tender document (MTF),
which is Ex.PW-1/C (111 leaves). The works to be
executed as per the agreement Ex.PW-1/B, had been
mentioned in Bill of quantity (BOQ), WHICH IS Ex.
PW-1/D, ( 8 leaves). At the time of filing the tender all
the rates pertaining to the item No. 1 to 141, which has
been mentioned in BOQ were quoted by the plaintiff firm
and on the said rates, the defendants accepted the tender of
the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff firm had quoted the rates in
BOQ Ex. PW-1/D on the basis of CPWD rates contained
in Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) and Delhi Schedule of
Rates Analysis (DSA). The dispute in the present lis is
pertaining to item No. 140 and 141 mentioned in BOQ,
Ex.PW-1/D. The dispute is regarding the item 140 and
141, i.e. site development. As per item No. 140, the earth
COMS No. 3 of 2023
is to excavated by mechanical means (Hydraulic
Excavator) including disposal of excavated earth within all
leads and lifts. Disposed earth to be levelled and neatly
dressed. In item No. 141, the carriage and disposal of
earth by mechanical means/transport including loading
uploading and stacking at contractors’ risk upto 5
kilometers. For both these items, the quantity mention in
the BOQ is 84960.00 Cubic Meter (CUM), whereas the
rate for each item is separately mentioned and agreed
upon. When plaintiff firm started the excavation work in
April 2018 and reached upto around six thousand cubic
meters, the said excavated earth was dumped to the site
allotted by the the FCI.
The said site was objected to by the Pollution
Control Board and the FCI stopped us from dumping the
earth on that site allotted by them. The Pollution Control
Board took up the matter with FCI officials vide letter
dated 11.06.2019, which is `Mark -A’. Thereafter, the
plaintiff firm asked the defendants to provide the alternate
dumping site at the earliest so that the execution of the
work should hamper. The defendants asked the plaintiff
firm to locate any alternative dumping site at our own as
they are paying them as per item No. 141 of BOQ. The
letter dated 11.03.2019, pertaining to that effect is `Mark-
B’. On the letter dated 11.03.2019, `Mark -B’, the
plaintiff firm started to locate the alternate dumping site
which were about 12 kilometer from the site. Three
COMS No. 3 of 2023
different sites located by the plaintiff firm were informed
to the defendants and the defendants have approve all the
three sites. Thereafter, the defendants constituted a
committee and visited all the three sites. Since as per item
NO. 141 of BOQ, only the sites upto five Kms., were
mentioned but since the sites located by the plaintiff firm
beyond five Kms., therefore, the defendant company
approved the new rates for the transpiration and other
incidental expenses which is `Mark -C’. The plaintiff
firm excavated about 1 lacs 6 thousand cubic meter earth
in total out of which about six thousand cubic meter were
dumped already allotted by the defendants and about
99000 cubic meters earth excavated was dumped by the
plaintiff firm in the newly located site. The plaintiff firm
raised the first three bills which are Mark -D’, `Mark -E’,
and Mark -F’, qua excavation and dumping of the earth to
the defendant company in which the defendant company
paid upto five kilometers as per the item No. 141 of the
BOQ only. However, the plaintiff firm received the entire
payment qua item No. 140 of the BOQ. So far as the
payment qua extra seven kilometers was concerned that
was not within the the preview of the concerned AGM,
therefore, he sent the proposal for payment of the
additional distance upto seven kilometers to the Zonal
Office of the defendant at Noida. All the work done
pertaining to excavation and dumping of the earth/soil
upto one lac and six thousand cubic meters was entered in
COMS No. 3 of 2023
their Measurement Book (MB) in the defendant record
`Mark-G’ (four leaves). The proposal send by the AGM
of the defendants to his Zonal Office was not accepted by
the Zonal office and they declined to pay any amount
under item No. 141 of the BOQ. On 15.05.2019, the
plaintiff firm raised the fourth bill `Mark-H’, to the
defendants but to the utter surprise of the plaintiff firm the
defendants adjusted all