IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 186 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.10.2010 Ram Karan Petitioner. Versus Sewal Mohammad and another Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by the order of the Court. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Sirmaur. It appears that after issues were framed some application under Sections 63 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed. On 26.6.2008 the case was listed for evidence of the plaintiff on 9.9.2008. On 9.9.2008 no PWs were present or summoned nor steps were taken. Adjournment was prayed for which was allowed and the case adjourned to 16.10.2008 on which date the defendant’s witnesses were also summoned. On 16.10.2008 defendant’s witnesses were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 present but the evidence of the plaintiff was not present and the case was again adjourned at the request of the plaintiff to 26.11.2008. On this date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was listed for proper orders on 5.12.2008. On this date the matter was adjourned to 19.2.2009. Two witnesses of the plaintiff were examined and the statement of one witness was tendered by way of affidavit. Counsel for the defendant sought adjournment to cross-examine the said witness and the case was adjourned to 24.3.2009. 3. The case was thereafter transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge and was taken up for effective hearing on 7.5.2009. On this date also no evidence of the plaintiff was present and a request for adjournment was made by the plaintiff. The matter was then adjourned to 20.07.2009. Even on this date the witnesses who had been summoned by the defendant for the purpose of cross-examination were present but the counsel for the plaintiff sought adjournment on the ground that the plaintiff could not come to the Court due to illness of his wife. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned and taken up for effective hearing on 11.12.2009. Again no PWs were present and the learned trial Court recorded that as many as 6 effective hearing had been given to the plaintiff for leading its evidence. However, one further opportunity subject to 3 payment of costs of ` 250/- was allowed and the matter adjourned to 22.2.2010. On 22.2.2010 again no evidence was present and the matter was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the plaintiff to 5.3.2010. On 5.3.2010 another adjournment was requested and last opportunity was given subject to payment of ` 500/- as costs and the matter adjourned to 22.3.2010. Even on 22.3.2010 no evidence was present and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. This shows that effectively 10 opportunities were given to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. 4. The learned trial Court has in fact been more than liberal in granting adjournments. I find that this is not a fit case where any further adjournment could be granted. The petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 20th October, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™