Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 79 (HP)

Tara Dutt Sharma v. Sanjeev Pandit

2014-01-10

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 27.8.2013, rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, HP, whereby evidence of the petitioner/defendant (herein after referred to as ‘petitioner’ for convenience sake), has been ordered to be closed. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent/plaintiff (herein after referred to as ‘respondent’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.1,26,300/-, on account of ‘use and occupation charges’ against the petitioner. 3. Petitioner filed written statement. Replication was filed by the respondent. Issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 3.8.2012. Respondent was directed to produce PW’s on 25.9.2012, however, no PW was present on that day. The respondent did not produce any PW’s on 15.12.2012 also. However, fact of the matter is that PW’s were examined on behalf of the respondent on 10.1.2013 and his evidence was closed. 4. The matter was listed on 30.3.2013 for the petitioner’s evidence. He was directed to take steps within a period of seven days. The matter was taken up by the Trial Court on 30.3.2013. No DW’s were present and matter was again listed on 14.6.2013 and again no DW’s were present. The matter was again ordered to be listed on 31.7.2013, for the evidence of the petitioner. The matter was listed again on 19.7.2013, when learned Trial Court ordered for the production of petitioner’s evidence on 27.8.2013. No DW’s were present on 27.8.2013. Thereafter, learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner, hence, the present petition. 5. It is evident from the facts enumerated herein above that respondent has also been granted two opportunities to lead his evidence. Petitioner has been, in fact, granted three opportunities whereas five opportunities are stated to have been given in the order dated 27.8.2013. Once the order has been passed by a Trial Court for the production of the evidence, the same must be complied with by taking steps for the production of the PW’s/DW’s. 6. The petitioner has not made out any case for enlargement of time for the production of the DW’s, however, in the interest of justice, since the respondent has been granted two opportunities, learned Trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce DW’s. 7. The petitioner has not made out any case for enlargement of time for the production of the DW’s, however, in the interest of justice, since the respondent has been granted two opportunities, learned Trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce DW’s. 7. Accordingly, order dated 27.8.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla in case No. 6-1 of 2012, is set aside and petitioner is directed to produce all the DW’s on next date of hearing, subject to the costs of Rs.5,000/-. The ad-interim order dated 27.9.2013, is vacated. However, in order to obviate delay, the parties are directed to remain present before the learned trial court on 18.1.2014. 8. In view of above, the petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.