2025:HHC:29976 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.337 of 2019 Decided on: 03.09.2025 M/s Peregrine Guarding Private Limited … Petitioner Versus Sh. Prem Kumar & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P., which order reads as under:- “Even today no RW is present. Some more time is prayed for leading evidence on behalf of respondent by Id. A.R. representing the respondent. For today, it was granted as exceptional opportunity to the respondent to lead the evidence with the specific condition that no further date would be granted at any costs. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that ample opportunities stand granted to the respondent to lead the evidence. There is no justification for further adjourning the case for leading evidence by the respondent. Hence, the prayer made by Id. A.R. for the respondent is declined and accordingly, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29976 the evidence of respondent is ordered to be closed under the orders of this Court. Now the case be listed on 04-06-2019 at Dharamshala for arguments.” 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, as obviously the order was passed by learned Labour Court, for the reason that despite reasonable opportunities having been granted to the petitioner, the petitioner did not lead any evidence, this Court does not finds any perversity therein. The Courts are not supposed to wait for eternity to the parties to lead evidence. This Court in more than one cases observed that ordinarily not more than three opportunities should be granted to a party to lead evidence and in case the Court is granting any further opportunity, then reasons need to be spelled out. As it could not be demonstrated that the impugned order was passed despite granting three opportunities and as it is evident and apparent from the tone and tanner of the impugned order that despite reasonable opportunities granted the petitioner failed to lead evidence, this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (Rishi)