IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 298 of 2025 Decided on: 06.06.2025 ____________________________________________________ Suman ……….. petitioner Versus Ashish Kuthiala ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.6.2025 passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla in case No. 267 of 2019. The present petitioner is the respondent/tenant therein and by virtue of the impugned order, the present petitioner has been restrained from leading any other evidence in support of her case other than the petitioner herself. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record appended alongwith the present petition. 3. Admittedly in the case at hand, there is a landlord tenant dispute, the same is pending adjudication before the concerned Rent Controller, wherein the present petitioner is the respondent/tenant whose eviction is being sought. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. Issues in the petition pending adjudication before the Rent Controller were framed on 16.8.2023. Steps for leading evidence by the landlord/present respondent were not taken on 5.10.2023, 17.11.2023, 19.2.2024, 25.4.2024, 10.5.2024 23.7.2024. Finally one PW was examined on 6.9.2024. Remaining PWs were to be examined on 9.12.2024. On 9.12.2024, the landlord/present respondent was examined, however, no cross examination insofar as the landlord/present respondent is concerned could take place on that date. Cross examination thereafter was deferred to 1.1.2025, 7.1.2025 and finally evidence of the landlord/present respondent was concluded on 14.1.2025. 5. Summoning and attendance of witnesses is dealt with in Order XVI. Order 16 Rule 1 envisages that on or before the date fixed by the Court for settlement of issues and not later than 15 days after the date on which issues were settled, the parties are to file the list of such witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and they are required to obtain summons to such witnesses for their attendance in the Court. 6. Orders dated 14.1.2025 and impugned order dated 13.5.2025 are being reproduced here-in-below for a ready reference.:- 3 14.1.2025: PW Ashish Kuthiala present and examined today. No other PWs are present today. Evidence of petitioner is closed vide separate statement of the petitioner. Let entire evidence of respondent be served for 13.5.2025. Steps be taken within 7 days, if Court assistant is required. Respondent be examined before other witnesses. Affidavit in support of examination-in-chief, if any, be also intended to be tendered, copies thereof be supplied in advance to opposite party. 13.5.2025:- No any evidence adduced for respondent, reported that neither any steps taken. So prayed for respondent, RWs be produced on 02.07.2025. Since no list of witnesses has been filed till date without any sufficient reasons, it is made clear that apart from respondent no other witnesses shall be permitted to be examined and it is ordered that copies of affidavits, if to be tendered in evidence, be supplied at least 02 days in advance to opposite party/counsel and default thereof shall entail imposition of costs for causing delay. 7. Vide order dated 14.1.2025, steps for summoning and attendance of witnesses were to be taken within seven days if Court assistance was required. Further vide the said order, petitioner/respondent was to be examined first before other witnesses. Since no steps for summoning evidence of witnesses was taken, therefore, vide order dated 13.5.2025, it was directed that apart from the petitioner/respondent, no other witness shall be permitted to be examined on behalf of the present/petitioner/respondent. 8. Order 16 Rule 1 and 1-A provide that the witnesses at the trial court are to be produced for examination by the parties by their filing the list, and omission thereon prohibits them to avail the assistance of the Court to secure their attendance to give evidence or to produce documents on their behalf. On their failure to do the same, Rule 1-A says that they may without assistance of the court bring witnesses to give evidence or to produce documents. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to 4 1995 4 SCC 244 titled as Lalitha J. Rai vs. Aithappa Rai. Relevant extract whereof is reproduced here-in-below:- “3. Order 16 Rules 1 and 1-A adumbrate that the witnesses at the trial court are to be produced for examination by the parties by their filing the list, and omission thereon prohibits them to avail the assistance of the court to secure their attendance to give evidence or to produce documents on their behalf. It is true that the legislature amended Order 16 Rule 1 and added Rule 1-A to see that the undue delay should not be caused in the trial of the suit by filing the list of witnesses or the documents at a belated stage./Thereby, it envisages that on or before the date fixed by the court for settlement of issues and not later than 15 days after the date on which issues were settled, the parties are to file the list of such witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and they are required to obtain summonses to such witnesses for their attendance in the court. On their failure to do the same, Rule 1-A says that they may without assistance of the court bring witnesses to give evidence or to produce documents/In other words, if they fail to obtain the summonses through court for attendance of witnesses they are at liberty to have the witnesses brought without the assistance of the court. 4. It would, thus, be seen that the legislature did not put a total prohibition on the party to produce the witnesses or the production of the documents for proof of the respective case.” 9. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 13.5.2025 is quashed to the extent whereby it limits the leading of evidence on behalf of the present petitioner to herself alone. The Rent Controller shall afford sufficient reasonable opportunity to the present petitioner to bring witnesses to give evidence without the assistance of the Court. The balance impugned order dated 13.5.2025 shall be complied with by the present petitioner/respondent in letter and spirit. Evidence on behalf of the petitioner/respondent shall be concluded within four months from 2.7.2025. 5 10. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of, so also, the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge June 06, 2025 tarun