2025:HHC:31446 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.307 of 2025 Decided on: 12.09.2025 Bresti & others … Petitioners Versus Smt. Himati Devi & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 3. Respondents No.4 (a) to 4 (c) and 5 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.6 despite service, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, the right of the petitioners to lead evidence has been closed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other orders appended in the petition including the zimini orders placed on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31446 record by the petitioners. 4. A perusal of the zimini orders demonstrates that after the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded, the case was listed for recording the statements of the defendants’ witnesses for 24.10.2018. On the said date no DW was present and the case was ordered to be listed for recording the statements of Dws on 13.11.2018. On the said date an application was filed by the defendants under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of the written statement. The application was allowed and ultimately, additional issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 24.12.2024. On the said date, the case was ordered to be listed for 17.03.2025, for recording the statements of Dws. However, on 17.03.2025, as no steps were taken by the petitioners to lead evidence nor any witness was present, another opportunity was granted and the case was listed on 19.05.2025. It is on this date that as no steps were taken by the petitioners to produce evidence nor any witness was present that the impugned order was passed, in terms whereof, right of the defendants to lead evidence was closed. 5. Though, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that more than three opportunities in all were granted to the petitioners to lead evidence, this order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted with, but as has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as after the framing of the 3 2025:HHC:31446 additional issues, only two opportunities were granted, as a matter of indulgence this Court grants one more opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, which is to be paid in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund, 2025, within a period of two weeks from today. In the event of the costs being deposited within a period of two weeks from today, one more opportunity shall be given by the learned Trial Court to the petitioners/ defendants to lead evidence on self responsibility. If the costs is not paid by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, this order will loose its efficacy. Similarly, if after the grant of one opportunity, witnesses are not examined by the defendants on the date to be given by the learned Trial Court, no further indulgence shall be shown by the Court. The parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 15.10.2025, on which date, learned Trial Court shall fix a date for recording of the statements of the witnesses. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 12, 2025 (Rishi)