IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 267 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 Birbal ...Petitioner. Versus Ashok Kumar & Ors. …..Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, For the respondents: Nemo 4._ _______________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi , Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. whereby the trial Court has dismissed an application under Section 151 C.P.C filed by the present petitioner for filing the list of witness and further the right to produce/examine the petitioner’s witnesses has been closed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the petition and the impugned order. 3. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.02.2025, it is evident that the petitioner by way of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2025:HHC:17291 ) previous order had been granted an exceptional, last opportunity to produce /examine his witness on self responsibility. On 25.02.2025, no witnesses were produced for examination by the present petitioner rather an application for filing list of witness was filed. The same was refused to be taken on record as witnesses were to be produced on self responsibility by the present petitioner. The trial Court was of the view that since despite sufficient reasonable opportunities having been afforded to the petitioner, he had failed to produce evidence, therefore, no further opportunity was justified. 4. Un-doubtedly procedure is a handmaid and not the mistress. Procedure has been codified in a procedural code in order to streamline the adjudicatory process inter-se the parties. The procedure prescribed is to ensure that a fair, reasonable, adequate opportunity is afforded to the parties to a lis to plead and prove their respective case. However procedure cannot be abused and proceedings cannot be un-necessarily protracted to the detriment of the opposing party. 5. Speedy trial requires an efficient justice dispensation system. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action. 3( 2025:HHC:17291 ) 6. Delay, dilatory tactics ensure non-dispensation of timely justice, thereby, shaking the trust and confidence of a litigant in the justice delivery system, Courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of a common man in the Institution entrusted with the administration of justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. 7. The impugned order in the case at hand shows how the civil process has been abused by the present petitioner in the case at hand by seeking repeated adjournments. Orders 17 Rule 1 of the CPC specifically provides that not more that three adjournments shall be granted during the hearing of the suit. In my considered view even the three adjournments cannot be granted as a matter of right. 8. In the case at hand, the petitioner has been dragging on the proceedings unnecessarily before the trial Court by taking adjournments continuously. The same is detrimental to the interest of the other party. Such callousness, indifference and laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his case before the trial Court cannot be tolerated. The litigant 4( 2025:HHC:17291 ) must help the Court by an effective participation for expeditious disposal of the case. 9. In the case at hand after having taken numerous opportunities for leading evidence, the petitioner can hardly challenge the correctness of the impugned order more particularly on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or that the trial Court has wrongly exercised jurisdiction. 10. It has been held by this Court in Shamsher Singh v. Surat Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 2298 that if a party does not lead evidence despite repeated opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait infinitely for the party to lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. It was observed:- "4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court along with the record of the case, in my considered view, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. It is a matter of record that the evidence of the defendant was closed by the learned Trial Court after affording him more than three opportunities to lead evidence. If a party does not lead evidence despite reasonable opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait till eternity for the party to 5( 2025:HHC:17291 ) lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. This extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while ordering that the defendant be granted an opportunity to lead evidence." (Emphasis supplied) 11. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 12 In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6( 2025:HHC:17291 ) 13. In view of the above terms,I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge June 02, 2025 (veena)