[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 23.12.2025 vs M/S Modern Shiksha Samiti Anadale on 23 December, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:45134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.691 of 2025
Decided on: 23.12.2025
.
Veeraraghavans ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Modern Shiksha Samiti Anadale, ... Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
of
__________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Ajay, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
rt
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-
"that the petition may kindly be allowed and after quashing and
setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court
No.5, Shimla in case No.109/1 of 2011, the petitioner may be
granted reasonable opportunity to lead evidence in support of his
case and the case may kindly be decided on merits in the interest
of justice, equity and fair play."
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Trial Court dated dated 04.11.2025 in terms whereof, the right of the petitioner
stood defendant to lead evidence in defence. The impugned order read as
under:-
"The matter was listed for DW's today but as per the report no
steps have been taken. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant stated
that defendant come from Tamilnadu and they could not take
steps due to this reason. Perusal of the case file shows that
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2025:HHC:45134
already six opportunities have been availed by the counsel for the
defendant for Dws since dated 09.08.2023. But since then till date
steps have not been taken. No cogent explanation has come from
.
the counsel for the defendant for not taking steps. The case
pertains to suit of recovery for amount of Rs.50,000/- and is one
of 2012. This court is of the view that since the case is old and
targeted one amounting to recovery suit and despite giving
multiple opportunities by this Court for Dws, the same was not
availed. In this view right to lead Dws stand closed by the order of
the court today. Let, the matter be listed for arguments on
01.12.2025."
of
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
rt
the zimine orders appended with the petition, the impugned order apparently
is perverse. The records demonstrates that after the evidence of the plaintiff
was closed, on 09.08.2023, the case was ordered to be listed for 06.10.2023
for recording the evidence of Dws, however, on the said date, the case file
stood transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Court No.5 Shimla to the
Court of Senior Civil Judge, Shimla. Then on 06.10.2023, the case was
ordered to be listed on 01.11.2023 with the direction that notice be issued to
the parties as well as their respective counsel. Thus, as on 06.10.2023, the
case was not listed for recording of the evidence of Dws on 01.11.2023, yet
the order passed by the Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge, Shimla on
01.11.2023 mentions so.
4. Be that it may, thereafter again on 01.11.2023, another
opportunity was given to the defendant to lead evidence and the case was
3 2025:HHC:45134
listed on 06.12.2023. On 06.12.2023, as no Dws was present, which
apparently otherwise also was the first opportunity granted to the defendants
.
to lead evidence, the case was listed for the said purpose on 22.02.2024. On
22.02.2024 also no witness was present and the case was ordered to be listed
on 09.04.2024 for this purpose. Now, thereafter what happens is that the case
is again transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.5 Shimla
of
and ziminee orders continue to be as such without there being any date fixed
for recording the statement of Dws, yet when the case was listed on
rt
04.11.2025, the impugned order has been passed. Though, in the impugned
order it has been recorded that the matter was listed on said date for recording
the statement of Dws but the previous orders suggests that there is a cutting
therein as initially the order was to the effect that put up for consideration on
04.11.2025 on taking steps in five days but thereafter, the word 'consideration'
has been cancelled and struck of and evidence of defendants has been
closed.
5. In these peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that it would be in the interest of justice in case the impugned order is set
aside and one final opportunity is granted to lead evidence. This will not
prejudice the plaintiff. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated
04.11.2025 is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to give one final
opportunity on self responsibility to the defendants to lead evidence. It is
4 2025:HHC:45134
clarified that this opportunity is not availed by the defendants, then no further
opportunity shall be given in this regard. Pending miscellaneous application(s),
.
if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 23, 2025
of
(meera)
rt
