IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 65 of 2023 Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 Harbans Lal .....Petitioner. Versus Bir Singh and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, for respondents No.23(b), 24(a) and 25(a) to 25(d). All the respondents proceeded against ex parte, except respondents No.23(b), 24(a) and 25(a) to 25(d). Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.02.2023, whereby an application filed under Order 16 Rule 7(A) CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine defendants No.1-Bir Singh and 17- Punjab Singh as present petitioner’s/plaintiff’s witnesses has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the petition. 3. At the very outset, I need to record my appreciation for the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 respondents, who has fairly drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court reported as 2008 (3) Shim. LC 176, titled Ram Das and Ors. Vs. Suresh Chander Prashar (CMPMO No.182 of 2008). The relevant extract whereof is reproduced herein below:- “10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in V.P. Subramaniam vs. P.Saraswathi, 2003(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 604, holding that Order 16 Rule 7 and 7A does not permit the other side to be examined as a witness. With respect, I cannot persuade myself to accept this proposition as the preponderance of the precedent is otherwise. Summoning the other party as witness may not be a rule or a general practice which is to be followed, but at the same time, why should a party shy away from the witness box? 12. If the presence of the opposite party is required for the discharge of its burden and onus, I find that Order 16 Rule 21 is not a bar for examination of the opposite side as a witness. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted.” 4. The aforesaid binding judgment, it appears was never brought to the notice of the learned trial Court. In view of the law laid down therein, the present petition is 3 allowed. Application filed under Order 16 Rule 7(A) CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine defendants No.1 and 17, as filed by the present petitioner, is allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 18.12.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 03rd December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)