2025:HHC:22853 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 545 of 2024 Decided on : 16.07.2025 Shri Pawan Kajal. …Petitioner Versus Ashwani Gupta and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Raghunandan Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra, in case CR No. Suit for recovery/02/2023, in terms whereof, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. 2. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the said order was passed by the learned District Judge after 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22853 observing that more than 15 adjournments to adduce evidence were granted to the plaintiff and despite last opportunity and opportunities granted subject to payment of cost, the plaintiff did not appear. Learned Court below has also made an observation that matter was lingering on for the evidence of the plaintiff for the last eight years and on one pretext or the other, the plaintiff was delaying the recording of the evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only indulgence which the petitioner/plaintiff is seeking from the Court is that as his affidavit is already on record, he be allowed to be cross-examined and further two more witnesses, who are to be examined by the plaintiff, be allowed to be examined subject to payment of some reasonable cost. This is opposed by learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 3. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the fact that more than 15 adjournments to adduce evidence were already granted to the plaintiff by the learned Court below, if at this stage, indulgence as is being prayed for, is granted to the petitioner, then this 3 2025:HHC:22853 Court shall be granting premium to the acts of omission on the part of the plaintiff. This Court, in umpteen number of cases, has ordered that not more than three opportunities should be given to either of the parties to lead evidence and in case, learned Court is granting opportunity in addition to three, then reasons are to be spelled out in the order as to why such indulgence is being shown by the Court. 5. In the present case, as already more than 15 opportunities stood availed by the plaintiff to lead evidence and even as on the date when the impugned order was passed, the plaintiff chose not to appear for the purpose of cross- examination nor the two witnesses, which are intended to be additionally examined by him, were present before the learned Court below, this Court does not sees any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below. 6. It appears that either the plaintiff is not interested in pursuing the litigation or he wants to linger on the same for some reason. This Court cannot become a party to such acts of the plaintiff by allowing this petition and by granting the petitioner another opportunity to lead evidence. 4 2025:HHC:22853 7. Therefore, as this Court finds no perversity in the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra, in CR No. Suit for recovery/02/2023 or merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 16, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)