IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 93 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Tilak Raj ….Petitioner. Versus Prem Lal ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.12.2010 whereby the request made by the petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) for adjournment of the case was rejected and evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the Court. 2. The undisputed facts are that the case was fixed on 29.12.2010 for evidence of the plaintiff. He was directed to produce the evidence on his self responsibility. It is also not disputed that this was the seventh opportunity granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence and the Court had already made it 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 clear that it would be the last opportunity subject to payment of costs. On 29.12.2010 neither the plaintiff nor his evidence was produced and an application for adjournment was filed in which it was prayed that the plaintiff was contesting the election to the office of Pradhan and was held up in election campaign and therefore could not produce the evidence. 3. In my view this is not a substantial ground and the learned trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. However, this Court has constantly taken the view that if the other party is compensated by way of costs then no party can be condemned unheard and every party has a right to put forward his case and contest the same on merits. 4. Therefore, I feel that the interest of justice will be served if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence. This is subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the evidence shall be produced by the plaintiff at his own responsibility. He can take assistance of the Court by taking summons but it will be his duty to ensure the service and production of the witnesses. In case, witnesses are not present then no further date shall be granted. 3 (ii) The plaintiff shall first examine himself and then the statement of the witnesses shall be recorded. (iii) This adjournment is granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- The costs aforesaid alongwith the costs earlier imposed by the learned trial Court must be paid on or before 22nd June, 2011 on which date the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court. In case costs are not paid then the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti copy. 18th May, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge