ORDER : By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to set aside order dated 26.04.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., in case No. 81-3 of 2016, titled as Prakash Chand Vs. Krishna and further seeking one more opportunity for producing and examining the complainant’s witnesses. 2. Petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against respondent, which is pending adjudication before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. as case No. 81-3 of 2016. Vide impugned order dated 26.04.2022, further opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence has been closed. 3. It has been averred in the petition that complaint was listed for complainant’s evidence on 08.01.2019, but the witnesses could not be examined and thereafter case was listed many times for the same purposes, but witnesses could not be examined for one or the other reason. After relaxation of COVID guidelines, the matter was listed on 11.03.2022 and was adjourned to 12.04.2022 for examination of complainant’s witnesses. On 12.04.2022, the case was again adjourned to 26.04.2022 for examining the complainant’s witnesses, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/-.On 26.04.2022, again complainant’s witnesses were not present and his evidence was accordingly closed. The impugned order has been assailed as illegal and perverse. It is submitted that a grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner as he will suffer loss of Rs. 4,10,000/- which the respondent had taken from him as loan. It has also been contended that for substantial period the witnesses could not be examined on account of COVID Pandemic. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 5. The “zimini” orders passed by learned Trial Court from time to time have been placed on record. The notice of accusation was put to the accused/respondent on 13.09.2019. The matter was adjourned to 06.11.2019 for recording of complainant’s witnesses. Since, no witness of the complainant including the complainant was present on the said date, the matter was adjourned to 13.01.2020. Probably, the matter was not taken up on the adjourned date and was listed on 10.02.2020. Again on said date, no witness of the complainant was present. The matter was further listed on 13.03.2020 and complainant still did not examine any of his witnesses. Probably, the matter was not taken up on the adjourned date and was listed on 10.02.2020. Again on said date, no witness of the complainant was present. The matter was further listed on 13.03.2020 and complainant still did not examine any of his witnesses. Thereafter, the matter appears to have been adjourned from time to time on account of COVID restrictions. The matter again came to be listed for complainant’s witnesses on 24.02.2022, on which date, the matter was adjourned to 11.03.2022 for recording complainant’s evidence. On 11.03.2022 again complainant’s witnesses were not examined and case was adjourned to 12.04.2022. Learned Trial Court specifically recorded in the order dated 11.03.2022 that last opportunity was being afforded to the complainant to examine his witnesses. On 12.04.2022, complainant neither appeared himself nor examined any witness. Learned Trial Court again showed indulgence and adjourned the matter to 26.04.2022, subject to cost of Rs. 500/-. On 26.04.2022, again neither complainant appeared nor his witnesses were produced which resulted in passing of impugned order. 6. The above noticed chequered record is clearly evident of the casual and negligent approach of complainant towards prosecuting his complaint. Learned Trial Court has recorded that since 06.11.2019, complainant had not only failed to examine his witnesses but had also not been putting his personal appearance before the Court. It appears that the laxity shown by the learned Trial Court has been misused by the petitioner/complainant. The “zimini” orders reveal that the adjournments were being obtained on behalf of the complainant from time to time without showing any plausible reason. Even on 26.04.2022, it was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the complainant was having some urgent work at home. Petitioner/complainant cannot be allowed any premium for his negligent behavior. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order was most appropriate order to be passed, therefore, no fault can found with such order. 7. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 26.04.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal District Shimla, H.P., is affirmed and petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.