2025:HHC:41285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.704 of 2025 Decided on: 02.12.2025 Rohit Kumar … Petitioner Versus State Bank of India … Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : No notice issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, right of the petitioner to lead evidence stands closed. The petitioner is stated to be the defendant before the learned Court below. In terms of the impugned order dated 28.08.2025, the right of the defendant to lead evidence has been closed on the ground that despite reasonable opportunities having been granted, he failed to lead evidence. A perusal of the zimini orders appended with the petition demonstrates that since 30.08.2024, six opportunities were granted to the petitioner-defendant to lead evidence, but he failed to do the same. This was despite the fact that time and again indulgence was given by the learned Trial Court as is evident from the zimini orders. 2. This Court in number of cases has held that ordinarily 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:41285 three opportunities are to be given to a party to lead evidence and thereafter, if the Court grants any further opportunity, then reasons have to be mentioned in the order as to why further opportunity is being granted. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for want of opportunity to lead evidence the defendant would not be in a position to put-forth his contention before the learned Trial Court does not impresses the Court, for the reason that it is not as if the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been arbitrarily closed by the learned Trial Court. The impugned order has been passed after granting six opportunities to lead evidence. By no stretch of imagination, grant of six opportunities can be said to be non-grant of sufficient opportunities to a party to lead evidence. Neither the Court nor the opposite party is to wait till perpetuity for a party to lead evidence and diligence has to be exercised by the party in the course of either pursuing its case or defending the case filed against it. 4. In the backdrop of above discussions, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 02, 2025 (Rishi)