IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C. Revision No. 65/2010 Decided on:26.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Namrta Self Help Group and another. Petitioners. Versus State Bank of India and others. …Respondent/proforma respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vaibhaw Tanwar, Advocate vice Mr. Anil Tanwar, Advocate for respondent-Bank. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.4, Shimla in case No. 40-10/2009 whereby evidence of defendants was closed. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience sake) has instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,94,975/- in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 No.4, Shimla against the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for convenience sake). The trial court framed issues on 8.1.2010. The plaintiff has already concluded its evidence. However, the defendants have not produced their evidence though several opportunities were granted to them do so and as such the trial court closed the evidence of the defendants. Normally, the defendants ought to have led their evidence as directed by the trial court. However, in the interest of justice, the Court deems it fit that one more opportunity can be granted to the defendants to lead their evidence. 3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.6.2010 is quashed and set aside. Defendants are granted last opportunity to lead their evidence at their own expenses on the date of hearing to be fixed by the learned trial court subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/-, as costs. It is made clear that in case the defendants fail to lead any evidence on the date fixed, it shall be open to the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 4. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 26.7.2010 *awasthi*