Not more than three opportunities to lead evidence in civil suits; excess requires reasons. Closure upheld after multiple non-compliance despite opportunities post issues framing.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

As per report of the Registry, respondent No.1 stands served through his wife. As service upon said respondent has been effected through an adult member of the family, there is a deemed service. As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Further, as per report of the Registry, respondent No.2 stands served. As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition may very kindly be allowed and orders dated 10/06/2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shimla, in Civil Suit No.83/2020, titled as Sh.Ajay Gupta versus Sh. Basant Kuthiala and other whereby the learned Court below has closed the evidence of the Plaintiff/ Petitioner may very kindly be set aside and quashed and any other order or relief that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be passed on this petition in the ends of law and justice.”

3. In terms of the impugned order, the right of the plaintiff/petitioner to lead evidence has been closed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed after granting him two opportunities.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to show the zimini orders which were passed after framing of the Issues and a perusal thereof demonstrates that after the Issues were framed on 11.01.2024, the case was ordered to be listed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff for 09.04.2024. On the said date, no PW was present nor steps were taken and the case was listed on 11.06.2024 for the said purpose. Same story was repeated on 11.06.2024 and the case was ordered to be listed for 21.10.2024.

5. On 21.10.2024, again no PW was present neither steps were taken. The case was thereafter, listed for 24.02.2025 and fact of the matter is that as thereafter also, no steps were taken by the petitioner to lead evidence, the right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed in terms of the impugned order. This demonstrates that the contention of the petitioner that right to lead evidence was closed after granting two opportunities only, is false and incorrect.

6. This Court has repeatedly held that not more than three opportunities should be granted to the parties to lead evidence and if more than three opportunities are being granted, then the Court concerned has to spell out reason in the order as to why the indulgence is being shown.

7. In the present case, as evidently much more than three opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence, yet no evidence was led, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the orders, in terms whereof, the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence was closed, present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.