IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 429 of 2025 Decided on: 30.07.2025 ____________________________________________________ Jeewan Lal ……….. petitioner Versus The Secretary (Panchayati Raj) Govt. and others ……….respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 5.6.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., whereby the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff in the case at hand had been closed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order. 3. Admittedly in the case at hand, issues were framed on 6.4.2022. Thereafter the matter was listed for recording of evidence of the present petitioner/plaintiff on 22.8.2022. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to mention that on 28.6.2022, list of witnesses alongwith diet money was deposited by the present petitioner before the trial Court. In order to seek assistance of the Court to secure the attendance of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 witnesses, reference can made to Order 16 Rule 1 and 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex court in (1995) 4 SCC 244. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced here-in-below:- 3. Order 16 Rules 1 and 1-A adumbrate that the witnesses at the trial court are to be produced for examination by the parties by their filing the list, d and omission thereon prohibits them to avail the assistance of the court to secure their attendance to give evidence or to produce documents on their behalf. It is true that the legislature amended Order 16 Rule 1 and added Rule I-A to see that the undue delay should not be caused in the trial of the suit by filing the list of witnesses or the documents at a belated stage. Thereby, it envisages that on or before the date fixed by the court for settlement of issues and not later than 15 days after the date on which issues were settled, the parties are to file the list of such witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and they are required to obtain summonses to such witnesses for their attendance in the court. On their failure to do the same, Rule 1-A says that they may without assistance of the court bring witnesses to give evidence or to produce documents/In other words, if they fail to obtain the summonses through court for attendance of witnesses they are at liberty to have the witnesses brought without the assistance of the court. 4. On 22.8.2022, statement of one PW was recorded. Thereafter the matter was fixed on 17.10.2022. On the said date, one witness of the petitioner/plaintiff i.e. Raj Kumar was given up. Thereafter the matter was fixed for recording of evidence on 21.12.2022. On 21.12.2022, no PWs were present. The matter was thereafter posted on 25.3.2023. The witnesses as per the 3 order dated 21.12.2022 were to be produced by the present petitioner/plaintiff on self responsibility. On 25.3.2023, no witnesses were present. The matter was adjourned for 13.6.2023. Witnesses were to be produced on 13.6.2023 at self responsibility. 5. Thereafter on 13.6.2023, since no evidence of the petitioner was present, therefore, by way of last opportunity, the matter was listed for 28.8.2023 for production of evidence on self responsibility. Yet again on 28.8.2023, no evidence was present. Hence on 28.8.2023 by way of an exceptional last opportunity, the matter was listed on 6.11.2023 for recording of evidence of the petitioner. Here again the witnesses had to be produced on self responsibility. 6. On 6.11.2023, 29.12.2023, yet again no evidence of the petitioner was available. Thereafter on 18.1.2024, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The matter was listed on 30.3.2024. Yet again, no evidence was available. The matter was listed thereafter for 3.6.2024, an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to bring evidence on self responsibility. On 3.6.2024, Examination-in-Chief of two witnesses was done, however, cross examination was deferred. The matter was posted on 25.7.2024. 7. On 25.7.2024, as per the order, no witnesses were present for purpose of cross examination. On the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave. Therefore, the matter was posted 4 on 19.9.2024. On 19.9.2024, none had appeared for the petitioner, hence, notices were issued to the petitioner. The notice so issued was made returnable for 18.11.2024. On 18.11.2024 the petitioner had appeared and the matter was fixed for cross examination of the witnesses previously examined on 3.6.2024. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 22.2.2025 for the aforesaid purpose. On 22.2.2025, yet again, no PWs on behalf of the petitioner were present for cross examination. The matter was thereafter by way of an exceptional last opportunity posted for 5.6.2025. On 5.6.2025, since no witnesses of the petitioner was available, therefore, the evidence of the petitioner was closed. 8. 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 5 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) 9. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects the justice delivery system came to be considered before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021 (12) SCC 612 , wherein, it has been held as under:- “9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and 6 mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. 6 10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. 11. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery 7 system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. 12. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 10. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the 7 territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 11. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the 8 evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 12. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that 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. 13. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition to invoking the 9 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 05.06.2025. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous, applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge July 30, 2025 tarun