The court emphasized the importance of attendance and timely response in civil proceedings, dismissing dilatory adjournment requests.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)

The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 197 of 2021, titled Rakesh Plah Vs. Mahesh Raj, whereby an application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the present petitioner, seeking adjournment, has been disallowed and as a consequence whereof the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead the evidence has been closed.

2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition.

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. From a perusal of the order-sheets, it is evident that on 01.03.2024, the present petitioner (plaintiff) a.nd one Ashok Plah had tendered their evidence by way of their afÏdavits as examination in chief. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present respondent had sought deferring of the cross-examination fof the aforesaid two individuals as copies of the evidence by way of afÏdavit had only been supplied on 01.03.2024 to the counsel.

4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the matter was thereafter posted for 22.04.2024. On 22.04.2024, none of the witnesses of the present petitioner who had submitted their evidence by way o f afÏdavits on 01.03.2024 were present in the Court for being cross-examined. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the matter was thereafter posted for 16.05.2024.

5. On 16.05.2024, Ashok Plah one of the witnesses of the present petitioner who had tendered his evidence by way of afÏdavit on 01.03.2024 was present in the Court and hence cross-examined. Insofar as the present petitioner (plaintiff) was concerned, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC had been filed seeking an adjournment on account of the fact that the present petitioner was not available in the State and hence, was unable to appear before the Court.

6. Admittedly, the application moved, seeking an adjournment was without an afÏdavit. The same had be.en prepared by the counsel as per the telephonic instructions received from the present petitioner. A response to the present application was filed, wherein detail of the way and manner in which the proceedings wfere being delayed by the present petitioner was highlighted and it was further submitted that the sole intent of the petitioner was to delay the pending litigation.

7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court while taking into account the number of opportunities that have been afforded to petitio ner to lead evidence and the fact that no reason was cited/disclosed in the application seeking adjournment, dismissed the same and the right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed.

8. It is a fact that, in the case at hand, numerous opportunities have been afforded to the present petitioner to lead evidence. Adjournments have also been afforded for leading evidence to petitioner on payment of cost. However, it is pertinent to mention that on 01.03.2024, evidence by way of afÏdavit was filed on behalf of the present petitioner and a witness cited by the present petitioner. Since, the copies of evidence by way of afÏdavits have been provided to the counsel for the respondent on

01.03.2024 itself, therefore, time was sought by the petitioner to prepare for cross-examining the aforesaid t.wo witnesses of the petitioner.

9. One witness was cross-examined on 16.05.2024. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner categorically submits that ofther than the witness i.e. Sh. Ashok Plah, who has been cross-examined, the only other witness, who has to depose,