IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 83 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.5.2011 Chhatu Ram …Petitioner. Versus. Salig Ram and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Loveneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1. : Mr. K.S.Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 2 to 4: Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has challenged the order dated 7.1.2011 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. 2. Issues in the case were framed on 18.6.2010. Thereafter the matter was listed for the evidence of the plaintiff on 17.09.2010. No steps were taken nor any PWs were present. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 12.11.2010. Again no steps 2 were taken nor PWs produced. Last opportunity was granted by the learned trial Court and the matter was adjourned to 7.1.2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/-. On 7.1.2011 also no steps were taken nor any PWs produced. Hence, the evidence closed. 3. There is no manner of doubt that the plaintiff has been remiss in prosecuting his case but in the interest of justice I feel that one more opportunity can be granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence. The plaintiff shall be granted only one opportunity to lead evidence and it shall be duty of the plaintiff to take Dasti summons to serve the witnesses and in case the witnesses are not served no further opportunity will be granted. However, in case any of the witness(es) does not appear despite service then obviously the Court can take coercive steps to ensure the attendance of such witness(es). This adjournment is granted subject to costs of Rs.3000/- with costs. The parties are directed 3 to appear before the learned trial Court on 14th June, 2011 on or before which date the petitioner shall pay the costs awarded by this Court and by the learned trial Court. In case costs are not paid then the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. It is obvious that in case the plaintiff leads evidence the defendants shall be entitled to lead evidence and shall not be bound by the statement given earlier. 12th May, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.