IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 132 of 2011 a/w CMPMO No. 176 of 2011 Decided on: 30.08.2011 CMPMO No. 132 of 2011 M/s Lloyd Electrical Engineering Ltd. Works …Petitioner. Versus Rakesh Kumar Bansal …Respondent. ................................................................................................................. CMPMO No. 176 of 2011 M/s Lloyd Electrical Engineering Ltd. Works …Petitioner. Versus Rakesh Kumar Bansal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same proceedings. 2. In CMPMO No. 132 of 2011, The petitioner (who is the defendant before the learned trial Court) has challenged the 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nahan, whereby the application filed by the defendant to place on record certain documents had been rejected. In CMPMO No. 176 of 2011, the challenge is to the order dated 26.4.2011, whereby the evidence of the defendant had been closed by order of the Court. 3. The undisputed facts are that the suit was filed by the respondent herein, Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal, claiming an amount of ` 27557/- alongwith interest from the defendants. The suit was filed in the year 2005. Written statement was filed on 18th March, 2006 alongwith a counter claim. Issues were framed in the suit on 14.05.2009. The plaintiff's evidence was recorded and the case fixed for evidence of the defendants for the first time on 19.06.2010. No DW was present on the said date and thereafter the case was adjourned to 10.08.2010. Again no evidence was present and it was stated that the M.D. of defendant No. 1 is out of the country. The case was adjourned to 6.10.2010, when affidavit of one Shri B.S. Bhardwaj was tendered in evidence and the case was fixed for cross- examination on 27.10.2010, but on the said date, the counsel for the plaintiff objected to the production of certain documents and thereafter an application was filed for placing on record the documents. This application was rejected on 07.12.2010. The defendant filed CMPMO No. 132 of 2011 against the said order, but did not produce his evidence, though there was no stay order -: 3 :- granted by this Court. Finally on 26.04.2011, the evidence of the defendant was closed. 4. The documents which are sought to be placed on record are letters whereby the plaintiff is alleged to have been appointed as Consultant and the other is the authority letter in favour of Shri B.S. Bhardwaj. No doubt, these documents should have been placed on record at the time of filing of the written statement or latest before framing of issues. It is also apparent that the defendant has been very lax in prosecuting his case and did not care to lead any evidence. However, the fact remains that the affidavit of Shri B.S. Bhardwaj has been tendered in evidence and he is only to be cross-examined. 5. No doubt, the defendant has not acted with the promptitude which is expected from a litigant, but keeping in view the larger interest of justice and also keeping in view the fact that the procedural law is meant to be used as a hard maiden of justice and not to thwart the rights of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that where the other side can be compensated by payment of costs, no party should be denied its right to contest the suit on merits. The suit, in the present case, was filed in the year 2005, almost six years back. Therefore appropriate cost will have to be imposed on the petitioner. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, both the petitions are allowed subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as costs, which must be paid on or before the next date. In case the costs -: 4 :- are not paid or Shri B.S. Bhardwaj does not appear before the learned trial Court for cross-examination on 12th October, 2011, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 12th October, 2011. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 30, 2011 (rajni)