IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.250 of 1999 Date of decision : June 15, 2010 Kishori Lal and others …Appellants. Versus Gokul Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms Charu Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) During the course of hearing of the matter, it has been pointed out that the defendants-appellants had not been afforded due opportunity to lead evidence to rebut/ controvert the evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents and also to prove the issues, onus of which had been placed on them. 2. I have gone through the zimini orders of the trial Court. Matter was listed for the evidence of the defendants- appellants, for the first time, on 15th July, 1994. They did not produce any evidence on that date. They were afforded another opportunity and were required to produce evidence on 19th August, 1994. On that day also, no witness of the defendants-appellants was present, though defendant No.1 himself was present. Request was made on behalf of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… defendants-appellants on that day for adjourning the case, as they had filed a revision petition in this Court against the order, dated 25th August, 1992, of the trial Court, whereby despite rejection of the plea of the present plaintiffs- respondents that they were legal heirs of Sullu Devi, on the strength of Will, they were allowed to be brought on record as LRs of said Sullu Devi. Learned trial Court rejected the prayer for adjournment and closed the evidence by the order of the Court. 3. I am of the considered view that the plea for adjournment raised by the defendants-appellants on 19th August, 1994 was not unfounded. Even if there was no stay order from this Court in the Revision Petition and the trial Court felt that in the absence of any stay order it could have proceeded with the matter, it ought to have afforded atleast one more opportunity to the defendants-appellants to produce their evidence, after rejecting their prayer for adjournment, in the interest of justice. 4. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is allowed, judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court, with the direction to afford two months time to the defendants-appellants to produce their evidence on one or more than one dates, but within the aforesaid period of two months, to adduce their evidence and thereafter also to afford an opportunity to the plaintiffs-respondents to lead …3… evidence in rebuttal, if any, and then to dispose of the case afresh, on merits. The case shall be decided on or before 31st December, 2010. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30th June, 2010. Registry to ensure that records of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, together with a copy of this order, reach the respective Courts before 30th June, 2010. June 15, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J