2025:HHC:39272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.183 of 2023 Decided on: 19.11.2025 M/s Gorsi Construction Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Sh. Kapoor Chand … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Ms. Madhurika Shekhon Verma, Advocate. For the respondent : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 19.11.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed before the learned Trial Court for re- calling order dated 20.03.2018, in terms whereof, the right of the petitioner/ plaintiff to lead evidence was closed, was dismissed. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused order dated 20.03.2018 as well as order dated 19.11.2022, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order. 3. Order dated 20.03.2018 reads as under:- “Case was listed for PWS subject to last opportunity but no PWS present. Perusal of case file shows that issues were framed on 49-02-2013 since then plaintiff taking 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:39272 adjournment on one or another ground and cost of Rs. 100/- vide order dated 24-05-2013 and cost of Rs. 500/- vide order dated 8-7-2013 and again cost of Rs. 500/- on 5-9-2013 was caused upon the plaintiff despite the fact he failed to produce any evidence in his favour. The case file was dismissed in default for want of non prosecution vide order dated 18-03-2015 but vide order dated 23-05- 2017 an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was allowed and the file was restored back thereafter plaintiff again availed five opportunities but failed to produce any evidence in his favour. Keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiff the PWS is closed by the order of the Court. Be put up for DWS on 20-04-2018. Steps be taken within 7 days.” 4. A perusal of this order demonstrates that after the Issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 19.02.2013, more than five opportunities were granted upto 20.03.2018 to the plaintiff to lead evidence, yet it failed to lead evidence. In this backdrop, the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence was closed. The application filed by the plaintiff to re-call said order has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.11.2022. As during the course of hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated that there was any perversity in the initial order dated 20.03.2018, in terms whereof, it stood recorded that the right of the plaintiff to lead 3 2025:HHC:39272 evidence was being closed as the plaintiff had failed to lead evidence despite reasonable opportunities having been granted, i.e. opportunities in excess of five, this Court finds no perversity in the subsequent order dated 19.11.2022 also, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner to re-call order dated 20.03.2018 was dismissed. 5. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 19, 2025 (Rishi)