2025:HHC:12252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 142 of 2025 Date of decision : 2.5.2024. Rajeev Sood ...Petitioner. Versus Chandan Goel ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla, whereby the evidence of the petitioner herein has been closed by the order of the Court. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2021, pending on the files of the learned Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla. 3. On 27.12.2023, the plaintiff had closed his evidence and on that date, the learned trial Court had adjourned the matter for the evidence of the defendant for 7.3.2023. On the said date, neither any witness of the defendant was present nor 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- steps were taken. The matter was then adjourned to 22.8.2023. The defendant examined one witness on the said date and sought adjournment for examination of remaining witnesses. The matter was accordingly adjourned at the request of the defendant for 21.9.2023. On that date, the case was not taken up as the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 29.10.2023 and notices were issued to the parties for 28.11.2023. 4. The record reveals that the defendant has examined two more witnesses on 25.5.2023 and thereafter, the matter again came to be adjourned for the remaining evidence of the defendant for 4.7.2023. In the meanwhile, the case was transferred and on 28.11.2023, the matter was adjourned to 19.1.2024 with directions to the defendant to examine his witnesses. In order to facilitate the process of examination of the defendant’s witnesses, an order was passed for summoning the witnesses. On 19.1.2024 again no witness of the defendant was present. It was urged on behalf of the defendant that only defendant was required to be examined as his own witness and could not appear before the Court due to his illness. Prayer made on behalf of the defendant was considered and allowed and by way of last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 18.3.2024. On the said date i.e. 18.3.2024 again an -3- application was moved on behalf of the defendant for adjournment, which was allowed and the case was adjourned for 25.4.2024. 5. It is further revealed from the record that on 13.5.2024 again the matter was listed for defendant’s evidence but the same was not examined and at the request of the defendant, the matter was again adjourned by way of last opportunity to 19.6.2024. On 19.6.2024 and 3.10.2024 again the request to similar effects were made for adjournments for the purpose of defendant’s evidence, which were allowed subject to costs. In both the orders exceptional and last opportunities were afforded to the defendant. 6. Lastly, the case was taken up on 23.11.2024 and again a request was made on behalf of the defendant for adjournment on the ground that he was not feeling well. 7. In this factual backdrop, the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court, closing the evidence of the defendant by the order of the Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suffering from brain tumor and is undergoing treatment. However, he has not been able to justify from the records as to what was the reason for non appearance of the defendant before the learned trial Court on 23.11.2024. -4- The medical record of the petitioner filed along with the petition also does not reveal that the petitioner was so unwell or unfit on 23.11.2024 that he could not appear before the Court. Rather, the record reveals that the petitioner had remained admitted for one day w.e.f. 5.11.2024 to 6.11.2024 in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for chemo therapy. There was long gap between 6.11.2024 to 23.11.2024. 9. In absence of any substantive material to justify the absence of the defendant on 23.11.2024, the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner could not have been taken as a gospel truth by the learned trial Court. 10. It is clearly evident from the record that the defendant had availed a large number of opportunities to lead his evidence. The Court has been considerate every time keeping in view the ailment suffered by the petitioner. However, the ailment of the petitioner could not be a ground for adjournment in perpetuity unless and until the defendant could reasonably justify his absence on a particular date. 11. As noticed above, there is no material on record to suggest that the absence of the defendant for the purpose of examining himself as witness before the learned trial Court on 23.11.2024 was justified, as no plausible reason had been shown to the learned trial Court. Even before this Court, no -5- tangible material has been placed on record to justify the stand of the defendant. 12. In result, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 2nd May, 2025. (kck)