2025:HHC:24551 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 66 of 2020 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Rajiv Sharma … Petitioner Versus Sunita Sharma … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed in CMA No. 3078/2019 in Civil Suit No. 22/2015 by the Ld. Civil Judge, Court No. 3. Una, H.P. titled as Sunita Sharma v/s Rajiv Sharma, may kindly be set aside and the petitioner/defendant may be granted an opportunity to lead evidence as prayed in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure P-4) to prove the documents already filed on record in accordance with law, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24551 learned Court below dated 21.12.2019, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “In nutshell the contents of the application are that at the time of preparing for the arguments, it was transpired by the respondent that certain house tax bills and tax deposit slips and record of electronic money orders have not been proved in accordance with law and he remained under this impression that those records have already been proved. The said records are necessary piece of evidence required to be brought on record for just and proper decision of the case, hence this application seeking permission for leading additional evidence on behalf of applicant (i.e. respondent in main petition). The application has been contested by the respondent/petitioner taking preliminary objection on the ground of maintainability. On merits it has been submitted that the evidence of the applicant was closed by the Courtorder in the main petition and thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments and after obtaining four adjournments for arguments, the present application has been moved unnecessarily to harass the respondent/petitioner and to linger on the matter. Hence prayed that the application be dismissed. Heard. Record perused. It is pertinent to mention here 3 2025:HHC:24551 that vide order dated 11.06.2019, the evidence of the applicant (i.e. respondent in main petition) was closed by the Court order on the ground that despite several opportunities given to the respondent he failed to produce his evidence. Now the present application has been moved on the ground that certain documents could not be proved inadvertently as the applicant was under the impression that they have already been proved. It is worth mentioning here that such lame excuse cannot be the ground to allow the applicant to lead additional evidence specially when he was granted more than ten opportunities to lead his evidence. Further it is worth mentioning here that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. If the litigant does not turn up to inspect court file and to obtain copies of orders of the court, then he is liable to bear the consequences. If the applicant is allowed to lead additional evidence then it will cause undue hardship to the respondent/petitioner and would also amount to review of the Court order. Further it appears that by moving present application, applicant cleverly intends to avail one more opportunity to lead his evidence which already stands closed by Court order. It is purely an abuse of process of law and a delaying tactics. 4 2025:HHC:24551 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed subject to cost of Rs.2000/-. Application accordingly disposed of. Be tagged with the main case file. Now to come up for arguments on 27.12.2019.” 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the order under challenge, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order because despite several opportunities having been granted by the learned Court below to the petitioner/defendant to lead evidence, the same was not led by him. Thereafter, it was only at the stage of arguments that an application was filed by the defendant praying for permission to lead additional evidence. This application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by passing a reasoned order. This Court concurs with the reasoning assigned in the order by learned Court below that as reasonable opportunities were granted to the defendant to lead evidence, no indulgence could have been further shown to lead additional evidence on the plea that at the time of preparing the matter for arguments, it transpired that certain house tax bills and tax deposit slips etc. were not proved on record in accordance with law. 4. As it is a matter of record that more than 10 opportunities were granted to the defendant to lead evidence and grant of any further opportunity would not only cause serious 5 2025:HHC:24551 prejudice to the respondent herein but would also cause further delay in the adjudication of the case. Therefore, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2025 (narender)