IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 121 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.05.2011 Mollana Abdul Subhan Khan ... Petitioner Versus H.P. Wakf Board … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order of the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 7.6.2010, passed in Civil Suit No. 8-S/1 of 2007, closing the evidence of the defendant by the order of Court. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 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 plaintiff took only one date for producing the evidence and two witnesses were produced on 28.5.2008 and the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent was accordingly closed on the first date itself. Insofar as the petitioner/defendant is 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 concerned, the first date fixed for evidence was 24.7.2008, when no witnesses were present nor PF was filed. On that date, the case was adjourned to 20.9.2008, on which date, still no steps were taken for service of the witnesses and adjournment was allowed subject to Rs.200/- as costs. 5. It is only on the next date i.e. 11.11.2008 that two witnesses of the defendant were present, but the case was adjourned on request on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that the original counsel was not present. Thereafter, the Court fixed the date for evidence as 16.5.2009, on which date, no witnesses were present, no steps were taken for service of the witnesses and request for adjournment by the defendant’s counsel was allowed. The case was fixed for 4.7.2009 and 3.9.2009, but no witnesses were present on these dates nor any steps were taken. On the next date i.e. 21.12.2009, the Court directed that all the witnesses be produced on self responsibility for 17.3.2010, but no steps were taken by the defendant and the case was adjourned to 7.6.2010, on which date, no witnesses were present and the adjournment was allowed subject to Rs.500/- as costs. On 7.6.2010 neither the cost of Rs.500/- was paid nor any witness was produced and the learned trial Court closed the evidence by the order of Court. 6. There is nothing on record to show that any application for adjournment supported by a medical certificate was filed before the learned trial Court particularly for adjournment due to illness of the petitioner/defendant. Alongwith the present petition, the petitioner has attached two medical certificates, first certificate dated 7.3.2010, for the period 10.2.2010 to 7.3.2010 and the second certificate dated 28.3.2011, 3 for the period 10.2.2011 to 27.3.2011, showing that the petitioner/ defendant was ill. These certificates do not pertain to the period when the evidence was closed by the order of the Court on 7.6.2010. There is nothing on record that the defendant/petitioner was ill during the period prior to 7.6.2010 and on earlier dates and, therefore, the learned trial Court has passed the order closing the evidence. A perusal of the record clearly shows that the defendant has not taken any steps to produce his evidence, though sufficient time was given by the learned trial Court. Two adjournments were also granted subject to costs, which were not paid for second date. Therefore, order dated 7.6.2010 has been passed in a reasonable manner by the learned trial Court who gave opportunities as required by law to the defendant. Prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one opportunity be granted to the defendant to produce his evidence, is declined. No infirmity could be found in the order passed by the learned trial Court closing the evidence. 7. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. There is no order as to costs. 8. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed. A copy of this order alongwith records be sent to the learned trial Court. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 03, 2011 Judge (BSS)