( 2025:HHC:15614 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 242 of 2025. Decided on : 22 nd May, 2025. Liyakat Ali & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Nisar Ahmed Shek & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan in Civil Suit No. 60 of 2022 has been assailed, whereby the evidence of the petitioners herein has been closed by the order of the Court. 3. Petitioners herein are the defendants before the learned trial Court. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4. Plaintiffs had closed the evidence on 14.10.2024 and thereafter the matter was listed on 06.11.2024 for defendants’ evidence. On that day, neither any witness of the defendants was present nor any steps had been taken. The same process got repeated on 02.12.2024, 07.01.2025 and 07.03.2025, when the learned trial Court granted exceptional last opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence on self responsibility. It was made clear that in case evidence was not produced on the next date i.e. on 14.05.2025, the evidence would be closed. Despite stop order passed by the learned trial Court, on 14.05.2025 again neither any witness was produced nor any steps were taken by the defendants. In these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 14.05.2025, the defendant was unwell. In support of such contention one OPD slip issued from Dr. Yashwant Parmar Government College and Medical Hospital, Nahan, in favour of Jafar Ali s/o Abdul Jahore has been placed on record. …2… ( 2025:HHC:15614 ) 6. As noticed above, since 6th November, 2024, the defendants had neither taken any steps for production of the witnesses nor produced the witnesses by themselves. None of the defendants had come forward to examine himself as a witness. No reasonable cause had been shown by the defendants on any of the dates for not producing the evidence. 7. As regards the ailment of defendant Jafar Ali on 14.05.2025, again will not help the cause of the defendants for the reason that there are 13 defendants and even if one of them was not feeling well, it could not have been a case for non production of evidence. Even otherwise, the record reveals that no such prayer was made before the learned trial Court on 14.05.2025 with respect to ailment, if any, of Jafar Ali. 8. In these circumstances, the defendants are not entitled to any discretion. Their intent clearly is to delay the proceedings of the case. In the given circumstances, the learned trial Court had no option but to pass the impugned …3… ( 2025:HHC:15614 ) order. No illegality or perversity has been noticed in the impugned order. 9. For the foregoing reason, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 22nd May, 2025. (jai) …4… ( 2025:HHC:15614 )