2025:HHC:23893 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 407 of 2025 Decided on : 23.07.2025 Bimla. …Petitioner Versus Rama Nand Thakur. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Madhurika Shekhon, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of order dated 14.05.2024, in terms whereof the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed. The impugned reads as under:- “14.05.2024 Present: Sh. Piyush Chandel, Advocate vice for Ms. Madhurika Shekhan, Advocate for applicant. Sh. Arun K. Verma, Advocate for respondent. No AWs present. However, Id counsel for the applicant sought one more opportunity to produce the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23893 remaining evidence on behalf of the applicant. A perusal of the record shows that the present matter has been listed for evidence of the applicant for the last more than two years that is w.e.f. 06.07.2022 and sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the applicant to produce evidence but today also the applicant has failed to produce the entire evidence despite availing 10 opportunities. The present application is old and targetted one. Under these circumstances, I do not find any justification to grant one more opportunity to the applicant to produce evidence. Hence, evidence of the applicant is closed by court order.” 2. A perusal of the order demonstrates that 10 opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead evidence yet she failed to avail said opportunities. 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is a matter of record that 10 opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead evidence but she could not lead evidence on account of her illness. 4. This Court is not influenced by the submission so made by learned counsel for the petitioner. As it is a matter of record that since 06.07.2022, the matter is lingering on for 3 2025:HHC:23893 recording the evidence of the petitioner and despite 10 opportunities given in the span of three years, the petitioner has failed to lead evidence, this Court finds no fault with the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, in terms whereof the right of the applicant to lead evidence has been closed. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 23, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)