2025:HHC:32218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 547 of 2025 Decided on : 17.09.2025 Kishori Lal (now deceased) through Legal Representatives namely Purshotam Chand and others …Petitioners Versus Bidhi Chand …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondent : Not served. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present petitioner may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 19/20-08-2025, 20-08-2025 and 04-09-2025 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge-II Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. passed in Civil Suit No. 165/2010 titled as Kishori Lal (now deceased) through LRs Versus Bidhi Chand 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32218 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and further proper opportunity to lead the plaintiff's evidence make kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, which finally have culminated into the impugned order dated 04.09.2025, which reads as under:- “Vide separate order of even date application filed under order 9 rule 4, 10, 12, order 16, order 18 read with section 31, 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for calling back the order dated 19.08.2025 passed in application of list of witnesses, order dated 20.08.2025 closing the plaintiff's evidence for non-appearance of plaintiffs, after affording proper opportunity for giving plaintiff evidence stands disposed of being dismissed. It be registered and tagged with main case file. In view of order dated 23.08.2025, list the matter for final order on 08.09.2025. At this stage, after pronouncement of order on above application, an application under order 17 rule 1 read with section 151 of CPC for adjourning the case for granting 10 days time filed. It be registered and tagged with main case file. Considering the contents of the application the same is partly allowed with the observations 3 2025:HHC:32218 that the matter is adjourned for final order on 12.09.2025 in terms of order dated 23.08.2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court had erred in not appreciating that after the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were brought on record, only two opportunities were given to them to lead their evidence. 4. This Court is not convinced with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made available the zimni orders passed by the learned Trial Court in the case, which demonstrate that the issues were framed in the suit by the learned Trial Court on 28.03.2012. 6. Thereafter, the case was listed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff for 21.08.2012. On the said date, no plaintiff’s witness was present. Time prayed to lead evidence was granted and the case was listed on 26.11.2012 for the said purpose. 7. On 26.11.2012, the Presiding Officer was on leave 4 2025:HHC:32218 and the case was listed for effective hearing on 25.03.2013. 8. On the said date, again no plaintiff’s witness was present. Time was prayed to lead evidence and the case was listed on 06.08.2013, subject to last opportunity. 9. On 06.08.2013, again the same story was repeated. No plaintiff’s witness was present. Again time was prayed for and the request was acceded to by the learned Trial Court and the case was listed for 19.10.2013. Now said opportunity becoming an “exceptional last opportunity”. 10. On 19.10.2013, as the Presiding Office was on training, the case was ordered to be listed for effective hearing on 29.01.2014. On 29.01.2014, as there was an abstain, the case was ordered to be listed on 20.05.2014, for the production of the evidence of the plaintiff. 11. On 20.05.2014, again no plaintiff’s witness was present. Time was prayed for and the case was ordered to be listed on 16.09.2014 on self responsibility. On the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave the case was listed on 03.11.2014. 12. On 03.11.2014, again no plaintiff’s witness was 5 2025:HHC:32218 available and the case was listed on 06.03.2015 to lead evidence. 13. On 06.03.2015 also, no plaintiff witness was present and the case was ordered to be listed on 12.06.2015 to enable the plaintiff to lead evidence. 14. On 12.06.2015, the same story was repeated and the case was listed on 31.07.2015. 15. This Court can continue with the zimni orders, but no need is there to mention any further dates because as from the first date even till 12.06.2015, enough opportunities were given by the learned Court below, but no steps were taken by the plaintiff to lead any evidence. 16. Now, in this backdrop, when one peruses the impugned order, simply because the original plaintiff died in the year 2021 and thereafter, his legal representatives were brought on record, this does not means that any fresh right accrued upon them to lead evidence by ignoring the opportunities which were availed by their predecessor-in- interest to lead evidence. 17. As despite reasonable opportunities having been 6 2025:HHC:32218 granted to the party, it failed to lead evidence, obviously, the learned Court below, who was having no other option but to pass the impugned order. In fact, even if the conduct of the plaintiff is seen in the facts of this case, all that this Court can observe is that the indulgences shown to the original plaintiff by the learned Trial Court to lead evidence, was otherwise also, not justified. 18. Therefore, in light of the above observations, as this Court finds no perversity in the order, in terms whereof, the right of the petitioners herein to lead evidence has been closed, more so, as it could not be demonstrated before this Court that the findings that were returned by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order(s), were perverse and were not borne out from the record, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)