1 2026:HHC:32829 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 699 of 2025 Decided on: 5.8.2026 The Secretary (Education) & anr. … Petitioners Versus Tara Devi & ors. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Rupinder Singh Manhas, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. None for respondent No. 6. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 15.7.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2 2026:HHC:32829 2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 3. By way of order dated 15.7.2025, evidence of respondents No. 3 and 4, before the learned trial Court, was closed in the petition filed by the petitioners, under Section 22 read with Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, read with Employees Compensation Rules 1924, seeking compensation, on account of death of Khub Ram. 4. Perusal of the copies of zimni orders, annexed with the petition, more particularly, order dated 15.7.2025, shows that when, the learned trial Court has closed the evidence, thereafter, the matter was again taken up, as the learned ADA, appearing for the petitioners had filed affidavit of Susheel Kumar Sharma, in evidence, but, the said affidavit has not been taken on record by the learned trial Court, on the ground, that evidence of respondents No. 3 and 4 has already been closed. 3 2026:HHC:32829 5. Although, sufficient opportunities have been availed by respondents No. 3 and 4 to lead evidence, before the learned trial Court, but keeping in view the paramount interest of justice, which requires that a matter should be decided on merits, rather than penalizing on account of a procedural default committed by one party in producing the evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents No. 3 and 4 deserve to be afforded one more opportunity to lead their entire evidence, to be produced on self-responsibility. Moreover, every litigant ought to be afforded opportunity of adducing the evidence, so that the issue involved, could be decided on merit, without the same being scuttled, on mere inaction, unless such inaction is so predominant that the same overshadows the merits of the matter. 6. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 15.7.2025, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. 4 2026:HHC:32829 7. Parties to the lis, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26.8.2026, on which date, the learned trial Court shall fix the date for RWs. The entire evidence, on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 shall be examined on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. No further adjournment for RWs will be given by the learned trial Court to respondents No. 3 and 4. 8. With these observations, the petition is accordingly disposed of. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 5.8.2026 Judge Kalpana