The court emphasized that not more than three opportunities should be granted to either party to lead evidence, and if more opportunities are to be granted, reasons should be assigned by the court for showing indulgence.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged order dated 09.01.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Shimla, District Shimla, HP, in Civil Suit No. 288-1 of 2018/09, vide which, the right of the present petitioners to lead evidence has been closed on the ground that despite eight opportunities having been granted to the defendants, they failed to produce their entire evidence.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned order as well as documents appended with the petition.

3. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that the evidence of the plaintiff was ordered to be closed by learned Trial Court on 16.08.2017 and thereafter, the matter was listed on 05.12.2017 for the purpose of recording the evidence of the defendants. On the said date, neither any D.W. was present nor any steps were taken by the defendants to summon any witness.

4. To cut the matter short, thereafter, the case was listed before the learned Trial Court for the purpose of recording the evidence of the defendants on the following dates:-

11.01.2018, 26.02.2018, 13.03.2018, 20.07.2018, 18.08.2018, 09.10.2018, 11.12.2018 and 09.01.2019.

5. On the aforementioned dates, no D.Ws appeared in the Court for the purpose of recording the evidence. It is in these circumstances that order of closing the evidence of the defendants was passed by the learned Court below on 09.01.2019, when on the said date also, neither any D.Ws appeared nor the cost subject to which said opportunity was granted to the defendants to lead evidence was deposited.

6. In my considered view, no illegality can be attributed to the order so passed by the learned Court below on 09.01.2019, vide which, it has ordered the evidence of the present petitioners as they had failed to lead evidence despite eight opportunities having been granted in this regard.

7. This Court on more than one occasion has held that ordinarily not more than three opportunities should be granted to either of the parties to lead evidence and in case, more opportunities are to be granted by the learned Courts, then reasons should be assigned by the Court as to why it is showing indulgence to the party concerned.

8. In the present case, eight opportunities were granted to the present petitioner to lead evidence.

9. This Court fails to understand as to why still learned Courts below are not adhering to the directions passed by this Court that in case more than three opportunities have to be granted, then reasons have to be assigned by the Court and opportunity to lead evidence is not to be granted to a party in a mechanical manner. Accordingly, it is again impressed upon the learned Courts below that in case more than three opportunities are being granted to a party to lead evidence, then there has to be a cogent reason assigned by the Court for showing indulgence and in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no cogent reason for granting any further opportunity to lead evidence, then, the right of the party concerned to lead evidence should be closed.

10. Coming to the facts of this case, despite eight opportunities having been granted to lead evidence, the defendants have failed to lead evidence. In this background, learned Trial Court has rightly closed the evidence of the present petitioners and said order can neither be said to be illegal nor perverse.

11. In view of the discussion held herein above, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Interim order passed, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.