IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 226 of 2011 Decided on: 07.09.2011 Prem Singh …Petitioner. Versus S.K. Sharma …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Anjana Khan, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has challenged the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, whereby the evidence of the defendant had been closed by the order of the Court. 2. According to the averments made in the petition, the defendant is a Branch Manager in the H.P. Gramin Bank. According to him, he was informed by his counsel that his matter is fixed on 31.03.2011 and since it was the closing of 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- the financial year and the petitioner is a Branch Manager, he could not take steps for summoning his witnesses. The case of the petitioner is that then he was informed that his case is fixed for 10th June, 2011. On the said date, the petitioner went to Kullu to appear as his own witness. He also wanted to produce S/Shri Anil Kumar Grover and Bhim Singh as his defence witnesses. He tried to search the aforesaid witnesses in their residential premises and also tried to contact them on telephone, but he could not trace them out as they were not available at their residences and according to the petitioner, a prayer was made before the learned District Judge to grant one opportunity to him to produce his evidence. 3. Ms. Anjana Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, has produced before me the certified copies of the zimni orders of the learned Court below, which totally belies the version of the petitioner. From a perusal of the zimni orders produced before me, it is apparent that the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded on 19.11.2010 and the matter was listed for evidence of the defendant on 05.01.2011. Steps for producing the witnesses were to be taken within fifteen days. No steps were taken and on 05.01.2011, counsel appearing for the defendant made a request for adjournment and on his request, the case was adjourned to 25.02.2011 and again it was ordered that steps be taken within ten days. -: 3 :- 4. Steps were still not taken by the defendant nor any evidence was produced on 25.02.2011 and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence on 31.03.2011. On 31.03.2011 again neither evidence was present nor steps were taken and one last adjournment was granted subject to payment of ` 500/- as costs. The defendant was directed to produce the evidence at his own responsibility on 07.05.2011. The matter was not taken up on 07.05.2011 since the Presiding Officer was not to be in station and vide notice put up on the notice board, all such matters were taken up on 13.05.2011. On this date, again adjournment was sought for and was granted as a last opportunity and the matter was adjourned to 10.06.2011. On 10.06.2011, no evidence was present. 5. The version of the petitioner-defendant that he was present on 10.06.2011 in Kullu is apparently false. If he had been present in Kullu, he could have come to the Court. He could have easily got his own statement recorded and made a request for giving him an opportunity to summon the remaining evidence. Similarly, his version that on 10th June, 2011, he went to Kullu to search out the witnesses appears to be totally false. This was the fifth opportunity given and if the petitioner-defendant was serious in summoning his witnesses, he would have contacted them much earlier or taken steps for serving them. -: 4 :- 6. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 07, 2011 (rajni)