IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.17/2021 Date of Decision: 18th November, 2025. Imtiaz Mohammad .....Petitioner Versus Chhotu Ram (Deceased) through LRs and Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for proforma respondents No.2 to 6. None for respondents No.1(e)(i) to 1(e)(iv). Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court. By way of the present petition, challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 19.03.2020, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, whereby right of the present petitioner/defendant to lead evidence has been closed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the records appended along with the petition. 3. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 10.03.2017. Subsequent thereto, nine opportunities were afforded to lead evidence. On 05.09.2018 i.e. the 9th opportunity, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 evidence was closed, vide separate statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 3 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).” 8. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to 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 4 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). 9. 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. 10. 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. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 02.12.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 18th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)