IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 66 of 2010 Decided on : July 28, 2010. State Bank of India …Petitioner. Versus Rameshwar Dutt …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is a bank, which has instituted suit for recovery of money against the respondent-defendant. Petitioner-plaintiff having failed to avail of various opportunities to produce evidence was afforded one last opportunity, under the orders of learned Additional District Judge, to produce its entire evidence. 3. Petitioner produced three witnesses before the trial Court on the date given in terms of the order of the District Judge. Two of those witnesses were examined. With regard to third witness, statement was made that recording of his evidence may be deferred. That request was granted. On the next date, an application was moved, seeking leave of the Court, to place on record and prove 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - statement of account, on which the claim was laid. It was stated that due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel, statement of account remained in the brief of the counsel, instead of being submitted with the plaint. That application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order, dated 13.1.2010, Annexure P-2. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Plaintiff is an institution and the interest of an institution should not be allowed to suffer, on account of unintentional lapses, on the part of its functionaries. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the application for production and proof of statement of account is allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 31.8.2010. July 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.