IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP MO No. 249 of 2008 Date of decision 1.9.2008 __________________________________________________________ CMP MO No. 249 of 2008 Leela Vati and Ors. ….Petitioners. Versus Satish Chand ….Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Shri B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shri Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been preferred against the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. II, Shimla closing the right of the petitioners herein (plaintiffs before the trial Court) to lead evidence. It is undisputed that repeated adjournments were granted by the learned trial Court but ultimately since no evidence was produced, the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence was closed. The order passed by the learned Court below is eminently just. Adjournment is not a right available to any party and cannot be claimed as a matter of routine. Not only do adjournments upset the working calendar of the Court but also send a wrong message to the litigants that 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the Court(s) can be manipulated at the whim of the litigants. Our legal system is not conceived to be invoked by a litigant at his whim and pleasure but is meant for dispensation of justice. A party is bound by the procedure and cannot dictate the Court calendar. Repeated adjournments unless in cases of extreme hardship cannot be sought to delay and clog the adjudicatory process and expose the entire system to abuse and manipulation. Having stated this on the fervent appeal of the petitioners that one last and final opportunity be granted in the interest of justice, this petition is accepted with reluctance and as an exception subject to the condition that further adjournments will not be allowed in the matter and one last and final opportunity will be given to petitioners herein to lead their evidence. Learned counsel submits that only witness who can depose about the facts is 80 years old remains to be examined and he can depose regarding the facts in dispute and the plaintiffs be given a fair chance to produce him in Court. As I have noticed that repeated opportunities had been given, but, the plaintiffs/petitioners seem to have enjoyed the luxury of adjournments. This petition is allowed subject to the condition that petitioners herein shall pay Rs. 5000/- as costs to the respondents. The petitioners herein shall be granted one last and final opportunity to lead evidence for which purpose they may take the help of the Court process if so desired. The costs will be paid by petitioners herein on the first date before the learned Court. It is clarified that in case costs are not paid, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the order challenged in this petition shall revive. This order shall not be construed as a precedent in other cases as it has been passed in the peculiar circumstance of this case. September 1, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge