IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Suit No. 4 of 2006 Date of Decision October 29, 2009 ________________________________________________________ H.P.T.D.C. ….Plaintiff Versus Rakesh Pathania ….Defendant ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Plaintiff : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate For the Defendant: Ms.Ruma Kaushik and Shri Bimal Gupta, Advocates. ________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. No steps have been taken by the plaintiff for summoning its evidence though repeated opportunities have been granted. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff praying for the following relief:- “In view of the submissions made hereinabove it is respectfully prayed that the present suit may be decreed and the Defendant may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 26,54,346/- alongwith interest at some nationalzed bank rate. The cost of litigation may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff Corporation.” The liability to pay the suit amount has been disputed by the defendant. Issues in the suit were framed by this Court on 8.3.2007: 1. Whether the defendant while acting as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of H.P. Tourism Development Corporation incurred an expenditure of Rs. 26,54,346/- unauthorisedly and in excess of the limits of 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 various facilities available to him, as per terms and conditions of his appointment? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount or a part of it from the defendant? OPP 3. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized person? OPP 4. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by time? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by the acts and conduct of its functionaries? OPD 6. Whether the plaint lacks material particulars, if so its effect? OPD 7. Relief. Needless to say that issues No. 1 to 3 were crucial for determining as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to the suit amount. For this purpose, evidence was required to be led by the plaintiff. On 27.6.2007, this Court noted: “Evidence of the plaintiff is not present. Let the plaintiffs produce their evidence at self responsibility. Date for recording the evidence shall be fixed by the Registrar (Inspection).” On 10.12.2007, again it was noticed that no evidence of the plaintiff was present. The Court recorded this fact in the following terms: “Evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs is not present. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the witnesses were not called as counsel representing the defendants had died in an accident in the meantime. Let the case be listed for recording evidence of the plaintiffs on a date to be fixed by the Registrar (Inspection). The witnesses shall be produced at the responsibility of the plaintiff itself. It is further directed that in case evidence is not present, no other or further opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiffs to lead evidence.” 3 On 12.8.2008, again no evidence was present and this Court closed the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence. The Court holds: “No evidence is present. The right of plaintiff to lead evidence stands closed. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff submits that matter is under consideration for reconciliation. List the matter after four weeks.” On 12.9.2008, an adjournment was granted to the plaintiff. Again on 22.10.2008, time was sought for taking further steps for compromise/leading evidence. Again the case was taken up, but no evidence was present on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, issues Nos. 1 to 3 are decided against the plaintiff because of lack of evidence. Issues Nos. 4 to 7 have thus become redundant, in view of my findings on issues Nos. 1 to 3. The suit is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. October 29,2009 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge