IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 300 of 2007 Date of decision: 22.5.2008 Joginder Singh Petitioner. Versus Dr. M.L.Gupta Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, vice Shri Rajinder Singh Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2007 whereby the evidence of the defendant has been closed by the order of the Court. No doubt, the petitioner-defendant has been remiss in conducting his case. Issues in this case were framed on 7.7.2004 and the plaintiff closed his evidence on 17.9.2005. Thereafter, the matter was listed for defendant’s evidence on 22.10.2005 but in the mean time defendant moved an application on 7.12.2005 for changing the date of hearing and the case was adjourned to 28.2.2006. On 28.2.2006 some witnesses were present but an application under Order 16 Rule (1) 3 CPC 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. was filed and the witnesses were not examined only on the ground that an application had been filed. This Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of adjourning the cases and not examining the witnesses only on the ground that an application has been filed. The court must examine the witnesses and on the application may call for the reply. Parties have a stake in the case. Judges and counsel are paid to do their work in Court. Witnesses are summoned and ordered by the Judge to attend Court. Their role is only to assist the Court. Witnesses should not be sent back un- examined unless the Court is left with no other option. Since the Courts normally adjourn matters in a very routine fashion and grant dates without any cogent reason, the witnesses are put to great hardship and discomfort. It should be the endeavour of the Courts to examine all the witnesses who are present. The application filed may or may not have any impact on the statements of the witnesses recorded. If it has some impact, some of the witnesses may have to be recalled, but there is no reason why evidence should not be recorded. After 28.2.2006 suit went on merrily for almost one year for consideration of the various applications filed by the defendant. I find from the record that numerous dates were given by the Court for hearing arguments on very minor applications. Finally, the application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C was disposed of on 18.11.2006 and the matter was fixed for defendant’s evidence on 17.1.2007. On that date another request for adjournment was made, which was allowed and the matter adjourned to 12.4.2007. On 12th April also an application for adjournment was filed. This application was rightly allowed. This is probably one of the few dates when the adjournment was justified since the defendant’s father had died. The matter was adjourned and thereafter taken up on 13.7.2007. Again no witness was present. Matter was adjourned to 28. 9.2007 when again no witness was present. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 9.10.2007 when another application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was filed. Arguments on the application was heard and same was allowed and the matter adjourned to 20.11.2007 for recording evidence. On that date affidavits of witnesses, Dhani Ram, Jeet Singh were tendered by the defendant and some witnesses were present. ASI Tarsem Lal, who was present was given up. The plaintiff sought time to cross examine the witnesses. One Dr. D.R.Galfat had not been served. Matter was adjourned to 27.11.2007, on which date Dr. D.R.Galfat was present but could not be examined and DWs Tarsem and Gitanjali Kuthial were also not present. Matter was again adjourned to 7.12.2007. On 7.12.2007 DW Jeet Singh was cross-examined and statements of Tarsem Kumar and Dr. Krishan Kishore recorded. Though request for adjournment was made, the learned trial Court did not accept the same and rejected the application. Hence the present petition. I have heard Shri Rajesh Verma, learned vice counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for respondent has rightly pointed that the defendant has got a large number of opportunities to bring his evidence. It is apparent that the defendant got a large number of opportunities and keep getting adjournments on one ground or the other. However, I find that on a large number of dates the Court granted the adjournments without plausible reasons and certain adjournments were necessitated due to request of the counsel of the plaintiff. However, on the last date the fault was not of the defendant. Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I feel that the interest of justice will be served if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to produce his evidence. Both the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26th June, 2008. The learned trial Court shall fix a date for remaining evidence of the defendant in the month of August, 2008. As already mentioned here-in-above only one date shall be granted to the defendant to lead evidence. It is also made clear that the defendant shall only be permitted to examine those witnesses whose names are mentioned in the list of witnesses or who were produced before the Court on the previous dates of hearing. He shall not be permitted to examine any other witness. It shall be the responsibility of the defendant to effect service of the summons on the witnesses. He shall ensure the service of the witnesses. In case any witness is not present despite service only in that condition the Court may grant another date for which date bailable warrants will be issued for the production of the witness, who has not appeared despite service. This special indulgence has been shown subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,500/-. The costs will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. Registry is directed to ensure that the record of the trial court is returned as early as possible so as to reach there well before the next date. With these observations petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 22nd May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™