2025:HHC:29295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 56 of 2023 Decided on: 29.08.2025 Raj Pal … Petitioner Versus Satbir Singh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate through V.C. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 17.01.2023, in terms whereof, the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was closed by the learned Court below. 2. The impugned order reads as under:- “Counsel for plaintiff again not appeared in the court. Plaintiff has been asked thrice to call his advocate but to no avail. In these circumstances, this court is constrained to proceed further. Here, it is pertinent to mention that neither the plaintiff has come forward for his examination nor tendered his examination in chief. Besides this, witnesses Pyare Lal and Kamal Thakur has been kept waiting since 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29295 morning which is nothing but harassment to the witness and wastage of judicial time. Diet Money paid to witnesses. So a serious view is taken against plaintiff and evidence of plaintiff are hereby closed by court order. Provisions of order 17 Rule, 3 CPC are hereby invoked. Be listed for decision of the case on 02.02.2023 as the steno of this court is on leave due to sudden demise of his father.” 3 . Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents, though this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, because, obviously, in the situation, as it stands spelled out in the impugned order, learned Court had no option but to pass the order that has been passed, however, taking into consideration the fact that as on 17.01.2023, it was only the second opportunity which was granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence, this petition is disposed of by modifying order dated 17.01.2023 to the effect that learned Trial Court shall give one more opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence on self responsibility, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents/ defendants on the next date of hearing. In case, the cost is paid by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondents/defendants on the next date, then a date will be given by the learned Trial Court to enable the plaintiff to lead evidence in his favour on self responsibility. In 3 2025:HHC:29295 case, cost is not paid by the plaintiff on the next date, then the learned Court below will not give any opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence and the order passed by this Court will lose its efficacy and the order passed by learned Trial Court shall stand revived. 4. In the event of the plaintiff availing the opportunity to lead the evidence, as is being granted to him by the Court, thereafter, learned Trial Court will give opportunity to the defendants also to lead evidence, however, ordinarily only three opportunities shall be granted. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 29, 2025 (narender)