IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.750/2025 Date of Decision: 22nd December, 2025. M/s Paradise and Anr. .....Petitioners Versus State Bank of India and Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.08.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP, whereby an application filed under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC, filed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs for placing on record documents has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. The suit in the case at hand was filed in the year 2013. The right of the present petitioners/plaintiffs to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 31.10.2019. The same is being reproduced herein below for ready reference. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 “On 08.03.2017, learned counsel for the plaintiffs after examining certain witnesses had stated that only the plaintiff is required to be examined, who shall be produced on self-responsibility. However, despite passage of more than 2½ years, the plaintiffs have failed to lead its evidence. Even, on the last date of hearing i.e. on 19.06.2019, it was made clear that this was the last opportunity being granted to the plaintiff to examine himself, but even today, he has failed to appear as his own witness. Therefore, the Court is left with no other option, but to close the evidence of the plaintiffs. Now to come up for the evidence of defendant No.1 on a date to be fixed by the concerned Registrar.” 4. An intra Court appeal was preferred against the same and the same was decided vide judgment dated 08.08.2023. Relevant part whereof reads as follows:- “9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No.31 of 2013, in terms whereof, the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed, is set aside and it is ordered that one opportunity shall be granted by the learned Court below to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, i.e. an opportunity to record the statement of plaintiff No.2, as witness of the plaintiffs. 10. As we stand informed that now on account of change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, this matter is to be transferred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., therefore, we order transfer of the case to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., before whom the parties are directed to appear through their counsel on 04.09.2023, on which date, plaintiff No.2 shall remain present in the Court for the purpose of recording his statement. 3 11. This further shall be subject to payment of costs by the plaintiffs/appellants to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1. 12. It is further ordered that in case plaintiff No.2 does not appear for having his statement recorded before the learned Court below concerned on the said date, then no further opportunity in this regard shall be granted to the plaintiffs.” 5. In terms of the judgment dated 08.08.2023, parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 04.09.2023. The Civil Suit on account of pecuniary jurisdiction had been transferred to the learned trial Court from the High Court. Record of the Civil Suit were received by the learned trial Court on 10.10.2023. None of the parties were present before the learned trial Court on the said date, thereafter, the matter was listed on 20.10.2023. On the said date, notices were issued to the parties returnable for 06.12.2023. The Presiding Officer was leave on the said date i.e. 06.12.2023. However, on the said date, presence of the defendants was recorded before the learned trial Cort. 6. Thereafter the matter was listed on 15.01.2024 and on the said date, defendant No.3 was not present and hence notices were issued. Presence of parties was completed on the next date i.e. 22.03.2024 and thereafter the matter was listed for recording of plaintiffs evidence on 4 15.06.2024. On 15.06.2024, affidavit by way of evidence was filed for cross-examination. The matter was deferred for 24.08.2024 and thereafter on 26.10.2024 and 21.12.2024, no PWs were present and the matter was thereafter posted on 22.02.2025. Yet again on the said date, no PWs were present. It is at this stage that an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, which was the subject matter of the present petition, had been filed. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, it has been correctly observed by the learned trial Court that the directions given to the present petitioner/plaintiff No.2 to appear and depose in terms of judgment dated 08.08.2023, passed in OSA No.2 of 2023, was observed more in its breach rather than in its observance. Cost in terms of said judgment was never paid. The said judgment made it absolutely clear that one opportunity would be afforded to the present petitioner/plaintiff No.2 for getting his statement recorded. 8. From the aforesaid, it is evident that more than one opportunity had been afforded by the learned trial Court. The suit as has been stated supra was filed in the year 2013. Application for production of documents, which allegedly should have been produced with the plaint were now sought to be brought on record by moving present application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC on 22.02.2025. The 5 application filed is not supported by an affidavit of the counsel against whom it is averred that original documents initially given for filing the consumer complaint had not been returned for the purpose of filing of the civil suit in the case at hand. The same were only retrieved from the previous counsel in February 2025. 9. Non-production earlier was not for valid and sufficient reasons. The application is not bona fide. The entire purpose is to protract the trial unnecessarily. 10. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the following binding dicta of the Apex Court in (2013) 14 SCC 1 titled as Bagai Construction through its proprietor Lalit Bagai vs. Gupta Building Materia Store has been observed by the learned trial Court more in its breach rather than in its observance. “15. After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered.” 11. Repeated adjournments by the counsels in mechanical and routine manner affects timely dispensation 6 of justice. As a consequence whereof, trust and confidence of the litigant in the justice delivery system is shaken. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action. There is a need to change the work culture and to get out of adjournment culture, which has to a great extent shattered the confidence and trust of litigants in the justice delivery system. 12. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects the justice delivery system came to be considered before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021 (12) SCC 612, wherein, it has been held as under:- “9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligent and 7 take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. 10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. 11. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bona fide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bona fide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. 12. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 13. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances and for the reasons stated herein above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 22nd December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)