Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 472 of 2011. Date of Decision : 27.12. 2011. 1. Sh. Ramsa Ram, son of Sh. Sabla, 2. Sh. Panch Ram, son of Sh. Saibu and Ramsa, Both are Village Bapil, Tehsil Shilai, Distt. Sirmour, (H.P.) …..Petitioners. Versus 1. Sh. Madan Singh, S/o Sh. Sai Ram 2. Sh. Sant Ram, S/o Sh. Dhana Ram 3. Sh. Telu Ram, S/o Sh. Dhana Ram 4. Gumani Devi, D/o Sh. Dhana Ram 5. Smt. Saji Devi, D/o Sh. Dhana Ram 6. Smt. Cheekhu Devi, Widow of Sh. Dhana Ram All defendants of Village Bapil, Tehsil Shilai, Distt. Sirmour, (H.P.). …..Respondents. 7. Sh. Khatri, S/o Sh. Sabla 8. Sh. Baru Ram, S/o Sh. Saibu. Both are Village Bapil, Tehsil Shilai, Distt. Sirmour, (H.P.). …. Proforma-respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. O.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K. R. Kashyap, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): By means of the present petition, petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to afford one more opportunity for the cross-examination of DW-4 (defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.80/1 of 2008 titled - 2 - Ramsa Ram and another Vs. Madan Singh and others pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No.2, Poanta Sahib, Sirmour, which was declined to him. 2. Notices of this petition were served upon the respondents, but despite service they are not present. 3. Heard. 4. The facts reveal that on 29th September, 2011, the statement of DW-4 aforesaid was deferred on the request of the petitioner herein, on the ground that his counsel was not present and the case was adjourned for 28.11.2011, subject to costs of `.500/-. But however on the adjourned date, plaintiffs’ counsel was again not present. The Ld. trial Court was left with no option but to close the right of the plaintiffs to conduct the cross-examination of the said witness. Further, the costs was also not tendered/paid. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are rustic villages belonging to the remote area of District Sirmour. They had entrusted `.500/- to their counsel from Nahan for making the payment to the respondents or tendering in the Court, but the counsel could not put in appearance on 28.11.2011. For the fault of the counsel, the parties may not be allowed to suffer. - 3 - Thus, sought one more opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. 6. Be it as it may. Keeping in view the plight of the plaintiffs who are rustic villagers of remote district, one more opportunity is granted in the interest of justice to the petitioner/plaintiffs to cross-examine DW-4 (defendant No.1) on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court, subject to the payment of costs of `.1,000/- in addition to `.500/- earlier imposed by the Ld. trial Court. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The plaintiffs are hereby directed to be present before learned trial Court on the date already fixed on 2.1.2011, on which date the costs shall be tendered in the Court. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. 27th December, 2011. (Surinder Singh), k.sharma Judge.