2025:HHC:32271 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 660 of 2022 Decided on : 17.09.2025 Sunil Bhardwaj …Petitioner Versus UCO Bank and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Ravinder Singh Chandel and Pooja Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Jitender P. Ranote, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 already exparte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may be very kindly be allowed and order dated 10/12/2021 & 18/11/2022 passed in Civil Suit no. 37/1 of 2016 titled UCO Bank vs. Sunil Bhardwaj & another, part of Annexure P-3 may very be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32271 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given up the prayer with regard to the challenge to order dated 10.12.2021. Qua the order dated 18.11.2022, he submitted that the right of the petitioner herein to lead evidence was closed by learned Trial Court, after grant of three opportunities. He submitted that because more than three opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence, therefore, the act of the learned Court below of closing the evidence of the petitioner after grant of three opportunities is not justified. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that as no steps were taken on any of the occasions by the defendant to lead any evidence, learned Trial Court has no option but to pass the order, that was passed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order in issue, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity therein because when the defendant failed to avail the three opportunities that were granted to him to lead evidence, the Court was not supposed to wait till eternity for the defendant to lead evidence. Herein, it is not the case that either steps were taken by the defendant to 3 2025:HHC:32271 lead evidence or some of the witnesses were examined and the remaining were not. In this case, no steps, whatsoever, were taken by the defendant to lead evidence and no witness was examined on the dates so fixed. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to cost. 6. The prayer of the learned counsel is granted as a matter of indulgence, subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- by the petitioner. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025 and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the respondent-plaintiff. 7. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 06.10.2025. In case, the requisite amount is deposited by the petitioner in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025 by the said date and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost is paid to respondent No.1- plaintiff, by way of bank draft on 06.10.2025, then the learned Trial Court shall give a date for recording the evidence of the defendant, on which date the defendant will have to lead the 4 2025:HHC:32271 entire evidence on self responsibility. In case, cost, as ordered by this Court is not deposited by the petitioner-defendant then this order will lose its efficacy. Similarly, if after grant of opportunity, no witness is examined by the defendant then also this order will lose its efficacy. It is clarified that not more than one opportunity will be given by the learned Court to the defendant to lead evidence. 8. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)