2025:HHC:18349 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.32/2021 Date of Decision: 16th June, 2025. Rajesh Verma & Anr. .....Petitioners Versus Tejveer Singh & Anr. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to order dated 07.01.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP, whereby the evidence of the present petitioners/defendants before the learned trial Court has been closed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. Previously vide order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, an application filed by the present petitioners/defendants before the learned trial Court to lead evidence had been dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the same, a CMPMO bearing No.391 of 2019, titled Rajesh Verma & Anr Vs. Tejveer Singh, had been filed. The same was decided on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:18349 27.10.2020. The relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, especially, reasoning assigned by learned Court below while passing the impugned order dated 29.7.2019 (Annexure P-3), this Court finds that despite there being repeated opportunities, defendants failed to lead their evidence and as such, this Court had no option, but to close the evidence. However, having taken note of the fact that defendants, pursuant to order dated 8.7.2019, passed by learned Court below, though deposited expenses, but failed to take dasti notices, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to grant one last opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence subject to payment of cost. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 29.7.2019 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and defendants are directed to lead evidence on their self-responsibility, on the date to be fixed by learned Court below, subject to their depositing cost amounting to Rs. 15,000/- payable to the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective parties before learned Court below on 18.11.2020, enabling it to fix the date for recording the remaining evidence of defendants. 5. Needless to say that Court before fixing a date, would ensure that cost in terms of instant order, is paid to the plaintiffs, failing which, impugned order dated 29.7.2019, shall automatically revive.” 5. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the present petitioners/defendants had ben granted opportunity to lead evidence on self-responsibility, subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs.15000/-. Presence of witnesses was to be ensured on 18.11.2020. 6. A perusal of the record shows that a local holiday was declared on 18.11.2020. Thereafter, the matter was 3 2025:HHC:18349 listed on 19.11.2020. On the said date, cost of Rs.15000/- was tendered by the present petitioners/defendants. Thereafter, the matter was listed for 23.12.2020. 7. On 23.12.2020, two witnesses were examined. Other than the aforesaid, two witnesses could not be served for want of correct addresses. Once again time was afforded by the trial Court to summon the two unserved witnesses, yet again they could not be served for 07.01.2021, on account of incorrect address. 8. Other than the aforesaid two witnesses, presence of an official from SBI Branch Kaulagarh, Dehradun, was sought to be secured by the present petitioners/defendants. The summon was served on the Manager of the Bank, but no witness from the said Branch appeared before the Court from SBI Branch Kaulagarh, Dehradun. 9. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that the judgment dated 27.10.2020, passed by this Court in CMPMO No.391 of 2019, has been observed more in its breach rather than its observance. The order passed by this Court was clear and categoric. The present petitioners/defendants was directed to lead evidence on self-responsibility on the date fixed, i.e. 18.11.2020. On the said date, being a local holiday, 4 2025:HHC:18349 the matter was fixed for 19.11.2020 and costs were deposited on the said date, however, no witness was produced. Subsequent adjournments for 23.12.2020 and 07.01.2021 were uncalled for. 10. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Order 16 Rule 1-A CPC. The same is being reproduced hereinbelow: “Order XVI Summoning and Attendance of Witnesses Rule 1-A: Production of witnesses without summons— Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, any party to the suit may, without applying for summons under Rule 1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents.” From a perusal of the same, it is evident that without assistance of the Court, a party to a suit may bring witnesses to give evidence or produce evidence. Recourse in the case at hand, should have been taken to the aforesaid provision moreso in view of the judgment passed by this Court on 27.10.2020, in CMPMO No.391 of 2019. 11. The sole contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants is based on Order 16 Rule 10 CPC and his precise contention is that once a summon has been served on the SBI Branch Kaulagarh, Dehradun, then the witness from the said Branch should have appeared before the Court. His further contention is that the presence of the said witness from the said Branch 5 2025:HHC:18349 be obtained by using coercive process, detailed in Order 16 Rule 10 CPC. 12. A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.01.2021, categorically reflects that the trial Court has delved into the issue with respect to evidence sought to be adduced from SBI Branch Kaulagarh, Dehradun, and has categorically held that no fruitful purpose shall be served by examining the witness, because no evidence can be led beyond pleadings and there is no justification qua examining the witness from SBI Kaulagarh, Dehradun, in the case at hand. 13. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 14. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National 6 2025:HHC:18349 Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 15. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in- above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 27.06.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 16th June, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)