( 2025:HHC:29321 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 497 of 2024 Decided on: 29.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ Rakesh Plah ……….. Petitioner Versus Mahesh Raj ……….Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 197 of 2021, titled Rakesh Plah Vs. Mahesh Raj, whereby an application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the present petitioner, seeking adjournment, has been disallowed and as a consequence whereof the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead the evidence has been closed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:29321 ) 3. From a perusal of the order-sheets, it is evident that on 01.03.2024, the present petitioner (plaintiff) and one Ashok Plah had tendered their evidence by way of their affidavits as examination in chief. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present respondent had sought deferring of the cross-examination of the aforesaid two individuals as copies of the evidence by way of affidavit had only been supplied on 01.03.2024 to the counsel. 4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the matter was thereafter posted for 22.04.2024. On 22.04.2024, none of the witnesses of the present petitioner who had submitted their evidence by way of affidavits on 01.03.2024 were present in the Court for being cross-examined. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the matter was thereafter posted for 16.05.2024. 5. On 16.05.2024, Ashok Plah one of the witnesses of the present petitioner who had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit on 01.03.2024 was present in the Court and hence cross-examined. Insofar as the present petitioner (plaintiff) was concerned, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC had been filed seeking an adjournment on account of the fact that the present petitioner was not available in the State and hence, was unable to appear before the Court. 2 ( 2025:HHC:29321 ) 6. Admittedly, the application moved, seeking an adjournment was without an affidavit. The same had been prepared by the counsel as per the telephonic instructions received from the present petitioner. A response to the present application was filed, wherein detail of the way and manner in which the proceedings were being delayed by the present petitioner was highlighted and it was further submitted that the sole intent of the petitioner was to delay the pending litigation. 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court while taking into account the number of opportunities that have been afforded to petitioner to lead evidence and the fact that no reason was cited/disclosed in the application seeking adjournment, dismissed the same and the right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed. 8. It is a fact that, in the case at hand, numerous opportunities have been afforded to the present petitioner to lead evidence. Adjournments have also been afforded for leading evidence to petitioner on payment of cost. However, it is pertinent to mention that on 01.03.2024, evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the present petitioner and a witness cited by the present petitioner. Since, the copies of evidence by way of affidavits have been provided to the counsel for the respondent on 3 ( 2025:HHC:29321 ) 01.03.2024 itself, therefore, time was sought by the petitioner to prepare for cross-examining the aforesaid two witnesses of the petitioner. 9. One witness was cross-examined on 16.05.2024. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner categorically submits that other than the witness i.e. Sh. Ashok Plah, who has been cross-examined, the only other witness, who has to depose, is the plaintiff himself, whose evidence was by way of affidavit has already been placed on record on 01.03.2024. 10. On 16.05.2024, an application on the instructions of the present petitioner was filed by his counsel stating therein categorically that the petitioner was not available to appear in Court on 16.05.2024 as on the said date he was out of the State. Hence, from a perusal of the application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC, seeking an adjournment on behalf of the petitioner, it is evident that the same did contain a reason for the non-presence of the petitioner before the Court on 16.05.2024. The trial Court has completely glossed over the reason cited in the application. 11. Other than the aforesaid, since a substantial part of the evidence of the petitioner stands recorded and only the petitioner needs to be cross-examined, hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 4 ( 2025:HHC:29321 ) 24.05.2024 is ordered to be quashed. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 24.09.2025. It is made clear that on the said date, the petitioner shall make himself available in the Court for the purpose of cross- examination by the respondent. No other witness on behalf of the petitioner shall be permitted to depose. On conclusion of cross-examination of the petitioner, the matter shall be posted for recording the evidence of the present respondent/defendant. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms subject to payment of costs. Taking into account the fact that it is only the suit for recovery of ₹21,000/-, the costs payable by the petitioner to the respondent are assessed at ₹3,000/-. Let the same be paid to the respondent on 24.09.2025 in the trial Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge August 29, 2025 Shamsh Tabrez 5