IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.374 of 2011 Date of decision : December 14, 2011 Shri Karamveer Sharma, son of late Shri Daya Ram Sharma, resident of First and Second Floor of Building No.6, Boileauganj, Shimla. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Vijay Ran wife of late Shri Shadi Lal, Ground Floor of Building No.6, Boileauganj, Shimla. 2. Smt. Saru Sharma daughter of late Shri Shadi Lal, Ground Floor of Building No.6, Boileauganj, Shimla. 3. Miss Tanu Sharma daughter of late Shri Shadi Lal, Ground Floor of Building No.6, Boileauganj, Shimla. 4. Shri Gaurav Sharma son of late Shri Shadi Lal Ground Floor of Building No.6, Boileauganj, Shimla. 5. Shri Saurav Sharma son of late Shri Shadi Lal, Ground Floor of Building No.6, Boileauganj, Shimla. 6. The Municipal Corporation, Shimla, through Commissioner, M.C. Shimla. …Respondents. Petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the order dated 17.3.2011(Annexure P1) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shimla, in Civil Suit No.1/1 of 2007, titled Shri Karamveer Sharma versus late Shri Shadi Lal and Others whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has closed the evidence of the petitioner by order of the Court. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. Ms Nishi Goel, vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit, in the Court of Civil Judge, Shimla. After the framing of the issues, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? CMPMO No.374/2011 …2… opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. Finally, on 30th November, 2010, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner and the matter fixed for 17th March, 2011, on which date petitioner produced two witnesses. He wanted to examine one more witness, who was not present on that date, but the trial Court closed his evidence. Aggrieved by this order of closure of evidence, petitioner has approached this Court, by means of the present petition, with the prayer that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner be granted atleast one more opportunity to examine the third witness. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dasti summons had been obtained, in respect of the third witness, but it could not be served upon the witness. Summons has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Report of the Process Server, on the back side of the summons, shows that the summons was shown to the Superintendent of Fire Office, who read it and told that the correct name of the office was not written and so he did not accept the same. Learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, did not take notice of this summons and the report. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had been afforded last opportunity to CMPMO No.374/2011 …3… produce his evidence on 17th March, 2011, though the order, granting last opportunity, did not say that the evidence was to be produced at self responsibility. 4. In view of the abovestated position, present petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of `1,000/-, impugned order is set aside and it is ordered that one more opportunity shall be afforded to the petitioner to examine the third witness, who is from Fire Office, on his taking steps, for summoning the said witness, within one week from today. Date for appearance of the witness shall be given by the trial Court. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16th December, 2011. December 14, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J