2025:HHC:16471 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.259/2025 Date of Decision: 28th May, 2025. Sukhdev .....Petitioner Versus Rattan Chand & Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. S.D Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court. Challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 09.05.2025, whereby the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed. The impugned order is being reproduced hereinbelow:- :09.05.2025: Present: Sh. P.V. Santoshi, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Sh. A.C. Bhatia, Advocate, vice for the defendant No.3 and LRs No.(ii) and (iii) of deceased defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is already ex parte. LRs No.1(i) already on the record as defendant No.1. LRs No.1(iv), 1(v), 1(vi) are already ex parte. Case today is listed for DWs subject to last opportunity. But no DWs are present. Further time sought for DW. The perusal of the present case file reveals that the case is being listed for defendant’s evidence since 18.10.2024. Already sufficient opportunities have ben granted for the defendants to produce their evidence, however, evidence on behalf of defendants is not concluded till date. Accordingly, the evidence on behalf of defendants is closed today by the order of the Court. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:16471 Let the case be listed for arguments on 26.05.2025. Sd/- (Rosy Dahiya) Civil Judge Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, HP. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. According to the record, plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 18.10.2024 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendants’ witnesses on 25.11.2024, 28.12.2024, 25.02.2025, 10.04.2025 and 09.05.2025. The aforesaid opportunities also included one last opportunity. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial Court was of the view that no further opportunity is justified. Hence, the opportunity to lead evidence by the defendant was closed by the order of the Court. 4. Record is clear on the issue that sufficient and reasonable opportunities have been granted to the defendant to produce their evidence before Court. It has been pleaded in the present petition that the defendant/petitioner could not appear in Court because he was under treatment but no medical proof in this regard has been tendered. No such plea was raised before the learned trial Court. 5. The aforesaid impugned order show how the civil process has been abused by the present petitioner, in the 3 2025:HHC:16471 case at hand, by seeking repeated adjournments. Orders 17 Rule 1 CPC specifically provides that not more than 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. 6. 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 must help the Court by an effective participation for expeditious disposal of the case. 7. 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. 8. 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 4 2025:HHC:16471 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 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) 9. 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. 5 2025:HHC:16471 (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 10. 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. 11. In view of 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 28th May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)