IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.680 of 2009 Date of decision : July 29, 2010 Tulshi Ram and others …Petitioners. Versus Bhagat Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Two orders, one regarding deletion of name of one of the plaintiffs and also for amendment in the plaint, which is dated 19th August, 2009, and the other regarding closure of the evidence of the defendants-petitioners, which is dated 16th December, 2009, have been challenged in the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. When questioned as to how the two orders have come to be assailed in one petition, despite the fact that there is nothing common in them, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the grievance of the petitioner is only against the order dated 16th December, 2009, regarding closure of evidence. Evidence of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… defendants-petitioners had been closed, because of their failure to avail several opportunities granted to them. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the defendants-petitioners to produce their evidence, at self responsibility, on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. Trial Court shall give date, which shall not be less than two weeks intervening time, and on the date so given, defendants-petitioners shall produce the entire evidence at self responsibility and if they fail to avail of this opportunity also, no further time/opportunity shall be given to them for producing the evidence. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 7th September, 2010. July 29, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J