2025:HHC:28860 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.412 of 2017 Decided on: 26.08.2025 Smt. Asha & others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Narain Dass & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 3, 4, 11 to 13 and 15 to 17. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 24.12.2012, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs has been closed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order is erroneous because the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence has been closed only after the grant of two opportunities. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that more than five opportunities were granted to the petitioners to lead evidence and as the petitioners failed to do the needful, it is thereafter that the order was passed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28860 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant record which is available with the petition. 5. In terms of the original record, the Issues were framed in the suit on 08.11.2011. Thereafter, the case was ordered to be listed on 28.02.2012 for recording the evidence of the plaintiffs. On the said date, no PW was present neither steps were taken by the plaintiffs and on the request of the plaintiffs the next date given was 18.04.2012. On this date also no PW was present nor any steps were taken by the plaintiffs to lead evidence and the matter was listed for the said purpose on 27.06.2012. On 27.06.2012, the Presiding Officer was not there on account of transfer and the case was thereafter, taken up on 18.07.2012. Thereafter, on 12.09.2012, the case was ordered to be listed on 19.10.2012 for recording the statements of PWs. On this date also neither any PW was present nor steps were taken. Again indulgence was given by the Court in terms of the order and the matter was listed on 12.12.2012. On 12.12.2012, the learned Trial Court passed the following order:- “No Pws present. At this stage, both the counsel stated that the present case is fixed for 24.12.2012 according to them. Now to come up for Pws on 24.12.2012, on last opportunity, failing which the evidence of plaintiff will be closed by the order of the Court.” Accordingly, the case was listed on 24.12.2012, on which date the 3 2025:HHC:28860 impugned order has been passed. 6. Thus, it is evident from the zimini orders that it is not as if the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence was closed only after the grant of two opportunities. Sufficient opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs to lead evidence, but as the plaintiffs failed to do so, obviously the learned Trial Court was not supposed to wait in eternity to enable the petitioners/plaintiffs to lead evidence. 7. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any perversity in the impugned order, in terms whereof, the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence has been closed, the petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 26, 2025 (Rishi)