Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision : 2.5.2024 vs Chandan Goel on 2 May, 2025
2025:HHC:12252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 142 of 2025
Date of decision : 2.5.2024.
Rajeev Sood ...Petitioner.
Versus
Chandan Goel ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed against the order
dated 23.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court
No.5, Shimla, whereby the evidence of the petitioner herein has
been closed by the order of the Court.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in Civil Suit No. 67 of
2021, pending on the files of the learned Civil Judge, Court
No.5, Shimla.
3. On 27.12.2023, the plaintiff had closed his evidence
and on that date, the learned trial Court had adjourned the
matter for the evidence of the defendant for 7.3.2023. On the
said date, neither any witness of the defendant was present nor
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
steps were taken. The matter was then adjourned to
22.8.2023. The defendant examined one witness on the said
date and sought adjournment for examination of remaining
witnesses. The matter was accordingly adjourned at the
request of the defendant for 21.9.2023. On that date, the case
was not taken up as the learned Presiding Officer was on leave.
Thereafter, the case was taken up on 29.10.2023 and notices
were issued to the parties for 28.11.2023.
4. The record reveals that the defendant has examined
two more witnesses on 25.5.2023 and thereafter, the matter
again came to be adjourned for the remaining evidence of the
defendant for 4.7.2023. In the meanwhile, the case was
transferred and on 28.11.2023, the matter was adjourned to
19.1.2024 with directions to the defendant to examine his
witnesses. In order to facilitate the process of examination of
the defendant's witnesses, an order was passed for summoning
the witnesses. On 19.1.2024 again no witness of the defendant
was present. It was urged on behalf of the defendant that only
defendant was required to be examined as his own witness and
could not appear before the Court due to his illness. Prayer
made on behalf of the defendant was considered and allowed
and by way of last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to
18.3.2024. On the said date i.e. 18.3.2024 again an
application was moved on behalf of the defendant for
adjournment, which was allowed and the case was adjourned
for 25.4.2024.
5. It is further revealed from the record that on
13.5.2024 again the matter was listed for defendant's evidence
but the same was not examined and at the request of the
defendant, the matter was again adjourned by way of last
opportunity to 19.6.2024. On 19.6.2024 and 3.10.2024 again
the request to similar effects were made for adjournments for
the purpose of defendant's evidence, which were allowed
subject to costs. In both the orders exceptional and last
opportunities were afforded to the defendant.
6. Lastly, the case was taken up on 23.11.2024 and
again a request was made on behalf of the defendant for
adjournment on the ground that he was not feeling well.
7. In this factual backdrop, the impugned order was
passed by the learned trial Court, closing the evidence of the
defendant by the order of the Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is suffering from brain tumor and is
undergoing treatment. However, he has not been able to justify
from the records as to what was the reason for non appearance
of the defendant before the learned trial Court on 23.11.2024.
The medical record of the petitioner filed along with the petition
also does not reveal that the petitioner was so unwell or unfit
on 23.11.2024 that he could not appear before the Court.
Rather, the record reveals that the petitioner had remained
admitted for one day w.e.f. 5.11.2024 to 6.11.2024 in Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital for chemo therapy. There was long gap
between 6.11.2024 to 23.11.2024.
9. In absence of any substantive material to justify the
absence of the defendant on 23.11.2024, the prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioner could not have been taken as a
gospel truth by the learned trial Court.
10. It is clearly evident from the record that the
defendant had availed a large number of opportunities to lead
his evidence. The Court has been considerate every time
keeping in view the ailment suffered by the petitioner.
However, the ailment of the petitioner could not be a ground for
adjournment in perpetuity unless and until the defendant could
reasonably justify his absence on a particular date.
11. As noticed above, there is no material on record to
suggest that the absence of the defendant for the purpose of
examining himself as witness before the learned trial Court on
23.11.2024 was justified, as no plausible reason had been
shown to the learned trial Court. Even before this Court, no
tangible material has been placed on record to justify the stand
of the defendant.
12. In result, I find no illegality or perversity in the
impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
2nd May, 2025.
(kck)
