IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.400 of 2010. Decided on: October 11,2011. Gopal Singh …….Petitioner/plaintiff. Versus Ram Dei and others …….Respondent/defendants. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.B.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order, dated 18.10.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide which the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff has been closed by the order of the Court. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court on 18.10.2010 closing the evidence of the plaintiff. The order, dated 18.10.2010, reads as under: “PWs are not present despite given L.O. The ld.counsel for plaintiff prayed date. But I find no reason to adjourn the case. Hence 2 evidence of the plaintiff is hereby closed by order of Court. Be listed for DWs on dt.11-11-10. Dasti summons be issued.” 5. It is clear from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court that no PWs were present despite last opportunity, as observed, having been given. A perusal of the order sheet dated 8.10.2010, i.e. prior to the date on which the impugned order was passed, shows that this was not given as last opportunity but the PWs were directed to be produced on own responsibility, on 18.10.2010. Therefore, the observations made that it was a last opportunity in the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 is not correct as per the record. Moreover, the plaintiff wanted to produce one witness, namely, Smt.Hima Devi, Advocate, who was appointed Local Commissioner, and for that, process fee was deposited for the date fixed on 18.8.2010, on which date the learned trial Court observed that steps not taken and the PWs were directed to be produced on own responsibility on 4.9.2010. The process fee had already been filed for that date and notice should have been issued to the witness since the process fee had not been exhausted so far. At the most, the learned trial Court could have observed that since it is an old case and sufficient opportunities have been given, the assistance of dasti notice could have been granted to the plaintiff to produce the PW which was not granted and though process fee was attached with the file and 3 had not been exhausted, the order was passed closing the evidence being the last opportunity, which was not correct. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of case, I am of the opinion that one more opportunity has to be granted to the plaintiff to produce the witness. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- payable to the respondent/defendants before the learned trial Court. Dasti summons shall be taken by the plaintiff for the service of the witness for which one opportunity shall be given by the learned trial Court. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 8.11.2011. The learned trial Court shall fix a date for the evidence of the plaintiff and shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to send the records of the case forthwith alongwith a copy of this order to the learned trial Court forthwith, so as to reach well before the date fixed. 7. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. October 11, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.