2025:HHC:8354 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.733 of 2024 Date of Decision 28.03.2025 Budh Ram .....Petitioner. Versus Saroj Kumari …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) Heard. The instant petition is a classical example of abuse of the process of law at the instance of a person, who is repeatedly litigating only because he was provided legal-aid. It needs to be observed that in the suit pending before the learned trial Court, the respondent was duly served and appeared through his General Power of attorney on 22.03.2023, and thereafter he prayed time to file written statement and the case was fixed for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 further proceedings on 9.4.2023. A perusal of the order sheets goes to reveal that even after one and half years, the petitioner did not file the written statement rather his GPA vanished in the thin air and thereafter, the petitioner availed legal aid. Despite endless opportunities, the petitioner did not file the written statement. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had been contacting the legal aid counsel or that the legal aid counsel had refused to prepare the written statement rather record reveals that the advocate appointed on legal aid basis was unduly made to face embarrassment simply because of non-cooperation of the petitioner. This eventually led to the defence of the petitioner being struck off which has been assailed in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. In addition to the above, what is more surprising that even the order of injunction, which is otherwise appealable and has been passed on 06.06.2024 has also been assailed in the instant proceedings. Once, the petitioner despite availing legal aid, fails to repeatedly appear before the Court and file written statement then I have no hesitation to observe that it is he, who wants to ensure that the litigation goes on endlessly. This attitude of the petitioner is condemnable and above all, is abuse for the process of the Court as well as the provision of the Legal Services Authority Act, whereby he has been provided Legal aid. Since this Court has categorically held 3 the petitioner to be at fault repeatedly by not appearing before the Court to file written statement and contesting the same, he obviously, cannot be heard in the matter to complain that the order of the court, whereby his defence has been struck off and thereafter he has been proceeded against ex-parte is illegal or not warranted. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 28th March, 2025 (veena)