1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.606 of 2025 Date of Decision : 14.10.2025 Gopal Dass …… Petitioner Versus Sunita Devi ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petitioner is the petitioner before the trial Court. By way of the present petition, challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, whereby right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2024 is being reproduced here-in- below:- “13.12.2024 Present: Sh. Makhan Bhatia, Advocate, for petitioner. Sh. Keshav Chandel, Advocate, for respondent being legal aid counsel. (copy of engagement letter filed). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Statement of two Pws namely Praveen Kumar and Bhagat Ram recorded. No other PW is present despite last opportunity. Time prayed for remaining petitioner’s evidence. Heard. The perusal of case file showed that case remained pending since morning for evidence of petitioner and despite wait of several hours, the petitioner could only ensure presence of one witness (PW5 Bhagat Ram) after recording one witness (PW4 Praveen Kumar) during pre lunch session. Even the petitioner has failed to appear despite last opportunity. It is 3:30 p.m. and the court has no option but to close remaining petitioner’s evidence b y the order of court. Consequently remaining prosecution evidence is closed by the order of the Court.” 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended along-with present petition. 3. The issues, in the case at hand, were framed on 23.04.2024. Post framing of issues, the matter was listed for recording of the present petitioner’s evidence on 05.06.2024 (Annexure P-3). On 05.06.2024, no evidence on behalf of the petitioner was present. Thereafter, the matter was posted for 26.06.2024. On 26.06.2024, statement of one PW namely Ajit Singh was recorded. Time was prayed for remaining evidence. The same was allowed as last opportunity and the matter was posted for 30.08.2024. On 30.08.2024, the Presiding Officer was not available, hence the matter was posted for 05.09.2024. On 05.09.2024, statement of one PW namely Kashmiri Lal was recorded. By way of last opportunity, the matter was now listed for 16.10.2024. On 16.10.2024, one PW namely Mehar Chand was 3 recorded. Thereafter, the matter was posted for 25.11.2024. On 25.10.2024, no evidence on behalf of the petitioner was available and the matter was posted for 13.12.2024. The aforesaid is evident from Annexure P-6, i.e. copies of order-sheets collectively appended along-with present petition. 4. On 13.12.2024, as has been reproduced here-in-above, it is evident that statements of two witnesses were recorded during the pre-lunch session. The petitioner failed to appear despite last opportunity, hence, the Court closed the evidence of the petitioner. First and foremost the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 has been assailed on 05.10.2025 belatedly. 5. Record is clear on the issues that sufficient and reasonable opportunities have been granted to the respondent to produce their evidence before Court. The order-sheets appended along with the petition show how the process has been abused by the present petitioner, in the case at hand, by seeking repeated adjournments. Order 17 Rule 1 CPC specifically provides that not more than three adjournments shall be granted during the hearing of the suit. In my considered view even the three adjournments cannot be granted as a matter of right. 6. In the case at hand, the petitioner has been dragging on the proceedings unnecessarily before the trial Court by taking adjournments continuously. The same is detrimental to the interest of the other party. Such callousness, indifference and laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his case before the trial Court cannot be tolerated. The litigant must help the Court by an effective participation for expeditious disposal of the case. 4 7. In the case at hand after having taken numerous opportunities for leading evidence, the petitioner can hardly challenge the correctness of the impugned order more particularly on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or that the trial Court has wrongly exercised jurisdiction. 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 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. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to 5 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, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 10. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Bipin Chander Negi) October 14, 2025 (KS) Judge