2025:HHC:31673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 506 of 2023 Decided on : 15.09.2025 Smt. Manju and others …Petitioners Versus Krishan Chand and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.08.2023, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Case No. 32-1 of 2018, titled as Krishan Chand & anr. Vs. Manju & Ors., in terms whereof, the evidence of the defendant’s has been closed. 2. A perusal of the record demonstrates that on 20.12.2022, the case was ordered to be listed on 19.01.2023 for recording the statement of defendants’ evidence. On the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31673 said date, defendants’ evidence was present and the case was ordered to be listed on 23.02.2023. On the said date, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was ordered to be listed on 21.04.2023. On 21.04.2023, again no defendants’ witness was present and the case was ordered to be listed on 15.06.2023. On 15.06.2023 also, the same story was repeated and the case was ordered to be listed on 03.07.2023. Thereafter, though what transpired on 03.07.2023, is not reflected in the zimni order but therefore the next date was 05.08.2023, on which date also, as no defendants’ witness was present and as the Court was informed that the mother of plaintiff No.1 and mother-in-law of defendant No.1 had died, the case was adjourned for recording statement of defendants’ witness for 25.08.2023. As even on the said date, no defendants’ witness was present, the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court. 3. This Court is of the considered view that as more than reasonable opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead evidence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The Court is not supposed to wait for eternity for 3 2025:HHC:31673 the parties to lead evidence. In fact, the conduct of the defendants is evident from the fact that on none of the occasions, any steps were taken to produce any witness also. This demonstrates that there was total negligence on the part of the defendants in availing the opportunities granted by the Court to lead evidence. 4. Therefore, in these circumstances, as this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 15, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)