IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.383 of 2009 Date of decision : July 23, 2010 Joginder Singh Thakur …Petitioner. Versus M.L. Gupta …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) A suit for damages, on account of defamation, has been instituted against the petitioner by the respondent, in a subordinate Court. Petitioner-defendant, despite opportunities, did not lead evidence. His evidence was closed by the order of the trial Court. A petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was filed in this Court against the order of closure of evidence, which was allowed, but it was categorically stated that only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence and it would be his responsibility to serve the witnesses. He wanted to examine three witnesses, with record. Two of those witnesses were examined. The third witness could not be served by the petitioner. So, his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application, under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, saying that certain documents could Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… not be produced alongwith the written statement and that those be permitted to be produced now. The documents were listed in the application. Trial Court has dismissed that application, vide order dated 17th March, 2009. Petitioner has now challenged that order, by way of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. None of the documents, which the petitioner wants to be taken on record, was in his possession. All these documents form part of the record of various departments of the Government. Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable when the documents are in possession of the defendant. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. Obviously, the application had been moved with a view to circumventing the order of the trial Court, by which his evidence had been closed, even after one opportunity having been granted by this Court in an earlier petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no merit in the present petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 4. However, in the interest of justice, petitioner is permitted to place on record the photocopies of the documents, referred to in the application, which are supposed to be in his possession, but the trial Court will take only those of the documents into consideration, while deciding the main case, which may be per se admissible in evidence. Petitioner shall have no right to summon witnesses to prove any of the …3… aforesaid documents, because he has already availed one last opportunity, granted by this Court in the previous petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Trial Court shall afford reasonable opportunity to the respondent to rebut the aforesaid documents, which have been permitted to be taken on record. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of, having become infructuous. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12th August, 2010. July 23, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J