2025:HHC:15722 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.119 of 2025 Decided on: 23.05.2025 Partap Sharma . ..Petitioner Versus Yashpal Sharma ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan and Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent: Ex-parte. Satyen Vaidya, Judge Despite service, none has appeared for the respondent. Hence, proceeded against ex-parte. 2. Aggrieved against the order dated 06.03.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Chopal, District Shimla in Case No.59-18, the instant petition has been filed. 3. The evidence of the petitioner herein has been closed vide impugned order. The impugned order reveals that one witness, namely, Vipan Aswal was present in the Court as witness of the defendant (petitioner herein), but he had not brought the summoned record for want of necessary particulars. Learned trial Court held that since sufficient opportunities had already been availed by the defendant, there was no justification to grant 2 further opportunity for leading evidence and hence, the impugned order was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the witness named Vipan Aswal was the only witness required by the defendant to be examined. He was Manager of Bank and certain records were summoned from him. He further submits that the original counsel for the defendant could not attend the hearing of case personally on 06.03.2025 on account of certain exigency with respect to affairs of the Bar Association and the parties were represented through Proxy counsel. He submits that in such circumstances, the defendant should have been afforded one opportunity to provide correct particulars to be brought by the witness. 5. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is harsh as in absence of learned counsel for the defendant, it could not have been ascertained as to whether incorrect particulars of summoned record were submitted due to any bonafide mistake or not. 6. That being so, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.03.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Chopal, District Shimla in Case No.59/2018 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to afford one opportunity to the defendant to 3 examine the witness i.e. Branch Manager of the Bank along with relevant record 7. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 23rd May, 2025 (vt)