IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 389 of 2010 Date of decision: 15th November, 2010 Om Prakash Chauhan Petitioner. Versus Sh. Harish Chander Chauhan Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 27.9.2010, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. From the order itself it is apparent that issues in the case were framed on 5.5.2010 and the case was listed for evidence of the plaintiff on 9.7.2010. It appears that no steps were taken to summon the witnesses and at the request of plaintiff, the matter was adjourned to 30.8.2010 subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as cost. I do not understand that why the Courts should impose costs on the first date when the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 adjournment was requested. Thereafter the matter was posted for 30.8.2010. No PWs were present on 30.8.2010 and again matter was adjourned subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as cost. On 27.9.2010, no PWs were present and the learned Court below closed the evidence of the plaintiff. 2. It is true that there should be efforts to dispose of the cases at the earliest, but one cannot sacrifice justice at the alter of disposal. There has to be a balance between the two. I am of the considered vide that no party should be condemned unheard, unless it is shown that the party is negligent or indolent. 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff is granted one more opportunity to lead his evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 18th November, 2010, the date already fixed. On or before the said date, the plaintiff shall file his complete list of witnesses, if not already filed. The learned trial Court shall thereafter fix the case in the end of December, 2010 or beginning of January, 2011 for the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall take Dasti summons for service of the witnesses and it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to ensure that the witnesses are served. In case they are not served, then the court shall not give any other opportunity to the plaintiff. However, in case the witnesses are served and not present, the court shall take coercive steps to 3 ensure the attendance of the witnesses. This petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as cost, which shall be paid on the next date before the learned trial court. The Court Master is directed to supply a duly certified true copy of this order to learned counsel for the parties during the course of day today. (Deepak Gupta) Judge November, 15, 2010 (KRS)