2025:HHC:45134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.691 of 2025 Decided on: 23.12.2025 Veeraraghavans … Petitioner Versus M/s Modern Shiksha Samiti Anadale, … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “that the petition may kindly be allowed and after quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla in case No.109/1 of 2011, the petitioner may be granted reasonable opportunity to lead evidence in support of his case and the case may kindly be decided on merits in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated dated 04.11.2025 in terms whereof, the right of the petitioner stood defendant to lead evidence in defence. The impugned order read as under:- “The matter was listed for DW’s today but as per the report no steps have been taken. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant stated that defendant come from Tamilnadu and they could not take steps due to this reason. Perusal of the case file shows that 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:45134 already six opportunities have been availed by the counsel for the defendant for Dws since dated 09.08.2023. But since then till date steps have not been taken. No cogent explanation has come from the counsel for the defendant for not taking steps. The case pertains to suit of recovery for amount of Rs.50,000/- and is one of 2012. This court is of the view that since the case is old and targeted one amounting to recovery suit and despite giving multiple opportunities by this Court for Dws, the same was not availed. In this view right to lead Dws stand closed by the order of the court today. Let, the matter be listed for arguments on 01.12.2025.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the zimine orders appended with the petition, the impugned order apparently is perverse. The records demonstrates that after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, on 09.08.2023, the case was ordered to be listed for 06.10.2023 for recording the evidence of Dws, however, on the said date, the case file stood transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Court No.5 Shimla to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Shimla. Then on 06.10.2023, the case was ordered to be listed on 01.11.2023 with the direction that notice be issued to the parties as well as their respective counsel. Thus, as on 06.10.2023, the case was not listed for recording of the evidence of Dws on 01.11.2023, yet the order passed by the Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge, Shimla on 01.11.2023 mentions so. 4. Be that it may, thereafter again on 01.11.2023, another opportunity was given to the defendant to lead evidence and the case was 3 2025:HHC:45134 listed on 06.12.2023. On 06.12.2023, as no Dws was present, which apparently otherwise also was the first opportunity granted to the defendants to lead evidence, the case was listed for the said purpose on 22.02.2024. On 22.02.2024 also no witness was present and the case was ordered to be listed on 09.04.2024 for this purpose. Now, thereafter what happens is that the case is again transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.5 Shimla and ziminee orders continue to be as such without there being any date fixed for recording the statement of Dws, yet when the case was listed on 04.11.2025, the impugned order has been passed. Though, in the impugned order it has been recorded that the matter was listed on said date for recording the statement of Dws but the previous orders suggests that there is a cutting therein as initially the order was to the effect that put up for consideration on 04.11.2025 on taking steps in five days but thereafter, the word ‘consideration’ has been cancelled and struck of and evidence of defendants has been closed. 5. In these peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case the impugned order is set aside and one final opportunity is granted to lead evidence. This will not prejudice the plaintiff. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 04.11.2025 is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to give one final opportunity on self responsibility to the defendants to lead evidence. It is 4 2025:HHC:45134 clarified that this opportunity is not availed by the defendants, then no further opportunity shall be given in this regard. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 23, 2025 (meera)