Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5273 (HP)

RAJINDER KUMAR (now deceased) through LR v. SURESH LAL AND OTHERS

CMPMO/25/2026 · 2026-01-08

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.25 of 2026 Decided on 08th January 2026 Rajinder Kumar (deceased) through his legal representative …Petitioner Versus Suresh Lal and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 12.09.2025, which reads as under:- “The matter was listed today for RPws, subject to last opportunity. No Pw is present today. Time sought RPws. Prayer considered and rejected, as sufficient opportunities have already been granted to lead plaintiff evidence. No sufficient reason has been assigned on behalf of the plaintiff for non-presence of plaintiff’s witnesses today or till date, hence, in view of these facts plaintiff evidence is closed by the order of the Court. Be listed for Dw on 11.12.2025. Steps, if any be taken within 7 days positively.” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the zimni orders, appended with the petition, 2 one finds that more than reasonable opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead evidence; yet, the petitioner was not able to lead complete evidence. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner now wants to examine only himself as witness, but, it could not be explained as to why the petitioner did not appear as his witness at the first instance and why despite several opportunities granted to the petitioner, he failed to lead complete evidence. 3. In light of the fact that the issues in the case were framed as far back as on 14.03.2020 and since then, the case has been lingering on for recording the evidence of the plaintiff and learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order after grant of sufficient opportunities, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 08, 2026 (Vinod)