2025:HHC:14569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.323/2021 Date of Decision: 19th May, 2025. Vidya Sagar .....Petitioner Versus Brij Lal & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vijay Kumar Bhatia, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. No notice issued to respondent No.4. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial Court. Challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 04.01.2020, whereby the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed. The impugned order is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “4.01.2020: Present: Sh. Subhash Thakur, Advocate, vice for the plaintiff. Sh. S.K. Kalia, Advocate, for defendants No.1 to 3. Defendants No.4 and 5 already ex parte vide order dated 19.06.2013. Today matter is listed for Pws. Dasti summons not obtained and no witnesses are present. Counsel for the plaintiff sought further time submitting that the mother of plaintiff is ill and therefore, he failed to appear. Counsel for the contesting defendants resisted the aforesaid prayed of the plaintiff's counsel by submitting that the plaintiff is intentionally delaying the matter just to harass the contesting defendants. Record perused. According to the record issues were framed on 3.06.2017 and thereafter present case was fixed for Pws 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:14569 on 11.10.2017, 18.04.2018, 8.08.2018, 19.12.2018, 13.03.2019, 5.08.2019 and for today. The aforesaid opportunities also includes last opportunities and also opportunities subject to cost. Record is clear on the issue that sufficient and reasonable opportunities have been granted to the plaintiff to produce his evidence, but neither the plaintiff has appeared before the Court nor has examined any witnesses except one witness. However, no medical proof in regard of illness has been tendered. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no further opportunity is justified. Hence, the opportunity to lead evidence by the plaintiff stands closed by by the the order order of the Court. List the matter for Dws on taking steps be summed for within ten days. DWs be summoned for 30.06.2020. Sd/- (Vikrant kaundal) Senior Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, HP. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 3. The aforesaid impugned order shows how the civil process has been abused by the present petitioner in the case at hand by seeking repeated adjournments. Orders 17 Rule 1 of the CPC specifically provides that not more than three adjournments shall be granted during the hearing of the suit. In my considered view even the three adjournments cannot be granted as a matter of right. 4. In the case at hand, the petitioners have been dragging on the proceedings unnecessarily before the trial Court by taking adjournments continuously. The same is detrimental to the interest of the other party. Such callousness, indifference 3 2025:HHC:14569 and laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his case before the trial Court cannot be tolerated. The litigant must help the Court by an effective participation for expeditious disposal of the case. 5. In the case at hand after having taken numerous opportunities for leading evidence, the petitioner can hardly challenge the correctness of the impugned order more particularly on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or that the trial Court has wrongly exercised jurisdiction. 6. On 05.08.2019, the petitioner had permitted to summon the remaining PWs on self-responsibility and for doing the same dasti process had been allowed on usual terms. After deposit of requisite diet money and process fee it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have obtained dasti summons by at least visiting the Registry concerned. Nothing has been placed on record wherefrom it can be adduced that steps had been taken by the petitioner for obtaining dasti summons from the Registry concerned. Conspicuous by absence is material on record to demonstrate that dasti summons were not provided by the registry concerned. Even if such was the case, no complaint in this regard has been made to the concerned authority. No rule has been pointed out whereby it is incumbent upon the Registry concerned to deliver dasti summons at the residence of the petitioner. The order dated 04.01.2020 therefore correctly records that dasti summons had not been ‘obtained’. 4 2025:HHC:14569 7. It has been held by this Court in Shamsher Singh v. Surat Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 2298 that if a party does not lead evidence despite repeated opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait infinitely for the party to lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. It was observed:- “4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court along with the record of the case, in my considered view, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. It is a matter of record that the evidence of the defendant was closed by the learned Trial Court after affording him more than three opportunities to lead evidence. If a party does not lead evidence despite reasonable opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait till eternity for the party to lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. This extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while ordering that the defendant be granted an opportunity to lead evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion 5 2025:HHC:14569 and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 9. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court through their counsel on 30.05.2025. The record be sent back forthwith to the learned trial Court on or before the date fixed. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)