Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Simro Devi – Appellant
Versus
Gian Chand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges order closing plaintiff's evidence after adjournments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. multiple opportunities wasted; limit adjournments to three for evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. late filing noted; petition dismissed without interference. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 18.11.2024, in terms whereof, the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed.
2. Though the order dated 18.12.2024 is not appended with the petition, but, learned counsel for the petitioners handed over a copy of the same to the Court, which reads as under:-
“No PWs are present despite being the fact that last opportunity was granted to plaintiff for today for concluding plaintiff's evidence. Counsel for plaintiff again sought adjournment for leading and concluding plaintiff's evidence. Prayer is considered and rejected as record shows that issues in this case were framed on 09.01.2018 and thereafter case was fixed for 12.04.2018 for recording of plaintiff's evidence since then ample of opportunities have been, granted to plaintiff for leading & concluding plaintiff's evidence but the plaintiff
Courts may close plaintiff's evidence after multiple (more than three) wasted opportunities in old suits; delays often due to parties' conduct, not judicial inaction; no interference warranted.
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.
Failure to produce witnesses despite multiple opportunities may lead to the closure of the right to lead evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of granting reasonable opportunities to the defendant to lead evidence and the need for judicial orders to fix actual dates for r....
Judicial discretion must balance the need for expeditious trial with fairness to parties, allowing limited opportunities for evidence while preventing indefinite delays.
The court reaffirmed the principle that parties must diligently prosecute their cases and that undue adjournments harm the justice system.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
