2025:HHC:24571 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.417 of 2025 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Shri Purshotam Singh … Petitioner Versus Shri Dinesh Kumar & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondent : No notice issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may very kindly be allowed and the order dated 24.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-cum-JMFC Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh traf whereby the Ld. Court has dismissed the application under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for recalling of the order dated 20/09/2024 in case civil case no. 527/2015 titled as Shri Purshotam Singh versus Shri Dinesh Kumar and another may kindly be quashed and set aside and an opportunity may kindly be granted to the petitioner/ plaintiff to tender his evidence before the Ld. Trial Court in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24571 perused Annexure P-1, dated 28.09.2024, in terms whereof, the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was closed, as well as order dated 24.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner for permitting him to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. Perusal thereof demonstrates that reasonable opportunities were being granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence since 15.09.2018. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence could not be led, for the reason that there was an inadvertent mistake committed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who was under this impression that the affidavit of the plaintiff, who himself was to appear as his witness, stood filed in the Court, however, this Court is not convinced with the submissions made by the petitioner. It is difficult to believe that the plaintiff himself was not aware as to whether his affidavit by way of evidence was filed before the Court or not. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that reasonable opportunities were not granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence since November, 2018 and thus, there is no perversity in these findings returned by the learned Court, it is obvious that the application which was subsequently filed by the petitioner to lead additional 3 2025:HHC:24571 evidence was, but a tactic to delay the matter as also to fill up the lacunae in his case. Otherwise also, as this Court does not finds any perversity in the order impugned, in terms whereof, permission was refused to the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the light of the fact that he has not been able to lead complete evidence since the year 2018, this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2025 (Rishi)