IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 61 of 2010. Decided on: 9.7.2010. __________________________________________________ State of H.P. and others. … Petitioners. Versus Shri Lachhman and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.Advocate General. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.2to 12: Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). Heard. Admit. 2. In view of agreement between the parties as emerges out at the Bar, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. In a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioners/defendants for grant of a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no right, title and interest of any kind over the same and the order, dated 14.5.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, in case file No.4 of 2007, titled Mani Ram versus Pawan Kumar is illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanently prohibitory injunction, the contesting defendants, State of H.P. and its functionaries were to adduce evidence on 30.11.2009, being the third opportunity. However, on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 that date also, the contesting defendants failed to either take any step to summon or produce their evidence and consequently, it was closed by order of the Court. While passing the impugned order, dated 30.11.2009, the learned trial Judge has relied upon the dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CMP No. 341, dated 2.8.2006 laying that grant of adjournment without any reasons is a serious illegality on the part of the Court. 4. After hearing the learned counsel/learned Deputy Advocate General for the parties and taking into consideration the averments set up in the petition and the documents filed therewith, I am convinced that it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice to grant one more opportunity to the contesting defendants to lead evidence so that the claim set up by the plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute is not adjudicated upon and finally disposed of without an opportunity to the contesting defendants to lay challenge to such claim in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 30.11.2009 is set aside. Consequently, the contesting defendants are granted one more opportunity to lead evidence by producing the same on self responsibility. However, if so desired, Dasti summons may be obtained from the learned trial Court. However, it shall be last opportunity subject to costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the plaintiff in the learned Court below on the date to be fixed hereinafter. The parties through learned counsel/Deputy Advocate General are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26.7.2010. A copy of this order be sent to that Court for information and compliance. 3 8. Petition stands disposed of, as also the pending CMP, if any. Copy ‘Dasti’ on usual terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 9, 2010. (cr)