2026:HHC:27642 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 350/2026 Decided on: 07.07.2026 Punjab National Bank …..Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Singh & anr. …Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order dated 14.05.2026, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., whereby evidence of the plaintiff has been ordered to be closed. 2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.13,91,878/- including interest against the defendants/respondents. As per averments, as made in the plaint, on 25.7.2015 defendant No.1 Kuldeep Singh, who is a contractor, applied to the petitioner- Bank for cash credit (H) limit facility of Rs.10,00,000/-. After 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 considering application and verifying credentials of defendant/respondent No.1, petitioner/plaintiff sanctioned the aforesaid cash credit limit in his favour on 25.07.2015 and to secure repayment of aforesaid loan amount, petitioner/defendant No.1 was required to provide one guarantee. Consequently, defendant/respondent No.2, Bhawna, came forward as a guarantor in favour of defendant/respondent No.1. Since the defendants/respondents defaulted in repayment of loan amount and cash credit limit account of the defendant/respondent No.1 became NPA, the suit for recovery, as aforesaid, was instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner against the defendants/respondents. 3 The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein various preliminary objections were raised and on merits, all the allegations as made in the plaint, were refuted and denied. 4 The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement, wherein, all the averments as made in the plaint were reiterated. 5 The learned trial court, after framing the issues, fixed the matter for evidence of the respective parties. 6 Admittedly, despite various opportunities being granted by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to conclude its evidence and ultimately, the learned trial 3 Court vide impugned order, dated 14.05.2026 closed the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner. 7 Feeling dissatisfied by the order, dated 14.5.2026, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8 The case file reveals that a lot of opportunities were granted to the plaintiff/petitioner and despite availing the same, the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to conclude its evidence. 9 This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order, as passed by the learned trial Court, is legal and well reasoned and the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Consequently, no interference is required in the same. 10 However, in the interest of justice and as a matter of indulgence, last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead/conclude its evidence. This indulgence is being shown to the plaintiff/petitioner on the payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the defendants/respondents by the next date of hearing. It is made clear that in case the aforesaid cost is not paid by the plaintiff/petitioner, in that event benefit of this order will not be applicable to it. 4 11 The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 06.08.2026, on which date the learned trial Court shall fix the date for leading the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. 12 The instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application, if any. (Romesh Verma) 07th July, 2026 Judge (pankaj)