IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 132 of 2008. Date of Decision: 23.5.2008 M/s Vikas Motors ..Petitioners. Versus. Prithi Chand & anr. .. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Indora, dated 6.5.2008 whereby he has closed the evidence of the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the defendants. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. HP 38-6217 and that the defendants have no right or concern with the said truck. 2 It is apparent from the record produced before me that the plaintiff’s evidence was examined on 17.8.2004 and thereafter the matter was listed for defendants evidence on 9.11. 2004. Some portion of the evidence of the defendants was examined. After about six effective dates for leading evidence were given, the defendants moved an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. This application was allowed on 21.3.2006. Thereafter again the defendants were given numerous opportunities to lead evidence. Eleven more opportunities were taken but the evidence was not produced. Therefore on 29.4.2008 the learned trial Court while accepting the request of the defendants and adjourning the case to 6.5.2008 directed that the defendants shall take Dasti summons for service of the witnesses. On 6.5.2008, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants. Para 3 of the application reads as follows:- “ 3. that in the aforesaid case the applicant could not effect the service of dasti summons on the witnesses because of illness. But, the applicant had delivered the dasti summons to the Nazir of Additional CJM, Nurpur. That the applicant is still unwell and therefore, could not effect the service upon the witnesses.” 3 It is apparent that the defendants did not even deem it proper to take Dasti summons for service of the witnesses. One of the appellants is alleged to be a finance company. There is no explanation as to why some employee of the Company could not have been deputed to ensure that the witnesses are served. The defendants have managed to prolong the proceedings for more than four years for leading their evidence and were given more than 17 effective dates to produce their evidence. Despite such indulgence shown, the defendants have failed to produce their evidence. It is absolutely clear that the defendants have been negligent in pursuing their case. No further indulgence can be shown to such a party. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 23, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.