IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 448 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.3.2011 Rameshwar Dutt …Petitioner. Versus State Bank of India …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Malay Kaushal vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 27th September, 2010 whereby the learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). 2. The suit, in question, was filed in the year 2007 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 31.3.2010 and the case fixed for defendant’s evidence on 19.6.2010. No witnesses were present on 19.6.2010, 13.8.2010 and on 27.9.2010 evidence of the defendant was closed. More than three 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 opportunities were given to the defendant but no steps were taken by him. 3. However, by way of indulgence, I feel that the interest of justice will be served if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner-defendant to lead his evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 4th April, 2011. The learned trial Court shall fix the case in the month of May, 2011 and shall give one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead evidence. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner-defendant to serve and produce his witnesses. This order is passed since no list of witnesses was filed by the defendant and it shall be the responsibility of the defendant to produce all his witnesses. No further opportunity shall be granted. This order is passed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.500/- as costs to the respondent-bank on or before the date so fixed. 4. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti copy. 1st March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge