2025:HHC:19148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 206 of 2025 Date of decision : 20.6.2025. Mata Kusumba Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Ramesh Chand ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Tejesvi Verma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Reeta Goswami, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advcate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has assailed order dated 11.3.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Anni, District Kullu in case No. 17 of 2022, which reads as under:- “PWs namely Amar, Budh Ram, Daya Nand Kanungo, Rajesh Kumar and Satender Sharma present in Court, but they have not been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Ld. Vice counsel for plaintiff has sought adjournment by stating that the original counsel is not well but neither any application in this regard has been moved nor any supported medical record has been produced before the Court to substantiate such averments. Hence prayer for adjournment declined. Witnesses present in the Court 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- have been discharged unexamined. Let diet money be paid to them. It is required to be mentioned that these aforementioned witnesses shall not be summoned again. Now the file listed only for remaining PWs as per the list of witnesses for 9.4.2025”. 2. Noticeably, the adjournment was sought on 11.3.2025 on the ground of ill-health of the counsel. There is nothing on record to suggest that the prayer was not genuine and bonafide. That being so, the plaintiff cannot be penalized. 3. Even otherwise, the plaintiff cannot be said to be grossly negligent in his conduct. Issues were framed on 11.11.2024 and the matter was adjourned to 9.12.2024 for plaintiff evidence but the evidence was not produced on the said date. Then, the matter was adjourned to 4.1.2025. The plaintiff had taken steps for summoning the witnesses. Notices were issued to the witnesses but the witnesses were not present. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 11.3.2025 and again the plaintiff had taken steps for summoning the witnesses and in pursuance thereto, five witnesses of the plaintiff were present on the said date. -3- 4. In above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is harsh and needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 11.3.2025 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to examine all the witnesses of the plaintiff including the witnesses who were present on 11.3.2025. 5. Petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 20th June, 2025. (kck)