2025:HHC:18745 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 319 of 2025 Date of decision : 18.6.2025. Husandeen ...Petitioner. Versus Nanu Khan ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has assailed order dated 7.5.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the order of the Court. 2. Record reveals that on 22.10.2024, the petitioner/ defendant was afforded opportunity to lead evidence and for such purpose, the case was adjourned to 3.12.2024. On that date neither any steps were taken for production of the evidence nor any witness was produced by the defendant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- himself. The same thing was repeated on the next adjourned date i.e. 11.3.2025. 3. on 16.4.2025, examination-in-chief of the petitioner /defendant was filed by way of affidavit. At the request of learned counsel for the defendant, the matter was adjourned for cross-examination. On the adjourned date i.e. 7.5.2025, the cross-examination of the defendant was conducted. Since no other witness was present, the impugned order was passed. 4. The impugned order reveals that on 7.5.2025, a prayer was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant to allow him to examine him as a witness. The prayer was declined on the ground that the petitioner/ defendant had already availed sufficient opportunities and had already been cautioned vide order dated 11.3.2025 that the adjournment was being granted to him by way of last opportunity. 5. Learned trial Court cannot be said to have exercised the jurisdiction illegally. The reasons mentioned in the impugned order are borne from the record. Despite opportunities, the petitioner/defendant had not even disclosed the name and particulars of the witness to be examined in the -3- case. Not only the petitioner/defendant has failed to submit the list of witness, but no separate application was filed in terms of provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, seeking leave of the Court for the purpose. 6. In such circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order and the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 18th June, 2025. (kck)