IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 64 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.3.2011 Bansi Lal ….Petitioner. Versus Partap Singh Kanwar and another ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. 2. Issues in the case were framed on 23.2.2010. Thereafter the case was adjourned on a number of occasions since the Presiding Officer was transferred. On 6.7.2010 examination-in-chief of one PW Bansi Lal was recorded. In the order it was mentioned that now the case to come up for cross-examination of the witness on 18.10.2010. On 18.10.2010 the Presiding Officer was transferred and the matter was effectively taken up on 24.12.2010, on which date the learned Presiding Officer 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 did not permit the plaintiff to examine one more witness Shri O.P.Sharma, who was present in Court and the learned trial Court held that as per the previous order dated 6.7.2010 only one witness of the plaintiff was to be cross-examined and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. 3. In my view the order of the learned trial Court is totally erroneous. There is no statement by the plaintiff or his counsel that he does not want to examine any other witness. No doubt, the order dated 6.7.2010 indicates that the matter was adjourned for cross-examination of the plaintiff to 18.10.2010 but it does not in any manner indicate that the plaintiff had made a statement that no other witness was to be examined. Further more on 29.11.2010 when the matter was taken up the case was adjourned to 24.12.2010 for PWs. It indicates that other witnesses were also to be examined. This second order has not at all been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the order of the learned trial Court is set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to lead evidence of Shri O.P.Sharma or any other witnesses at his own responsibility. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 31st March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge