IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.407 of 2011 Date of decision : December 15, 2011 Shri Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Chandu Lal, resident of Lal Kothi, Phagli, Tehsil and District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. …Petitioner. Versus Shri Telu Ram (deceased) through his Leval Representatives. 1. Smt. Shanti Devi, 2. Shri Kushal Kumar, 3. Shri Ishwar Sharma, 4. Shri Sushil Sharma, 5. Smt. Rani, 6. Smt. Shashi, 7. Smt. Vijay, All residents of Shop No.133, Lower Bazaar, Shimla-1. …Respondents. Petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Shimla, in case No.95-1 of 2006. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents, for recovery of certain amount of money, on the ground that he had advanced the claimed money to the respondents, as part of sale consideration of certain property, which the respondents had agreed to sell him. It is alleged by the petitioner that the agreement failed, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? CMPMO No.407/2011 …2… because of the respondents not coming forward to execute the sale deed, by the stipulated date. So, he filed suit for recovery of money. 3. One of the grounds of opposing the claim of the petitioner, as raised in the written statement is that the petitioner did not have sufficient funds, by the stipulated date, to pay the remaining amount of consideration and, therefore, he himself is to flame for the failure of the agreement. Petitioner controverted the plea. Issues framed covered this plea also. 4. Petitioner, with a view to proving that he had sufficient funds, examined an employee from a bank to prove the entries in the bank accounts of himself and his mother. However, when the matter was at the final hearing stage, it was noticed by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that by mistake record of the bank had been summoned for a period, which was not relevant. So, he moved an application, seeking leave of the Court to re- examine the witness, with the relevant record. That application was opposed by the respondents. Learned trial Court has disallowed that application, vide impugned order dated 12th September, 2011. So, the petitioner has approached this Court, for quashing the said order and directing the trial Court to let him re-examine the bank employee with the relevant record. CMPMO No.407/2011 …3… 5. The background, as noticed hereinabove, shows that it was on account of the inadvertence of the counsel for the petitioner that instead of the record for the relevant period, record for irrelevant period was summoned from the bank. Learned trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the matter is very old. This, by itself, could not have been a ground for rejecting the prayer. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the evidence sought to be led is not relevant, because the main ground of opposition of the claim of the petitioner is something else. May be that the main ground of opposing petitioner’s claim is different, but the fact remains that it is also the case of the respondents that the agreement failed because of petitioner’s inability to arrange sufficient money, for paying the remaining amount of sale consideration. 7. In view of the abovestated position, petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and petitioner’s prayer for re-examining the bank employee, with relevant record, is allowed. Trial Court shall fix the date for summoning the bank employee. 8. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. CMPMO No.407/2011 …4… Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner, which he may show to the learned trial Court, on the next date fixed in that Court for the hearing of the suit. December 15, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J