##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CMPMO No.787 of 2025

th

Decided on 29 December 2025

Tiloksons Brewery & Distillery

…Petitioner

Versus

M/s Bhagwati Wine

…Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 t

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Arun K. Verma, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed

order dated 08.10.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in terms whereof, the right

of the petitioner-plaintiff to lead evidence has been closed. The

impugned order reads as under:-

“Statement of one PW Dinesh recorded. No

other PW is present. Time prayed. From perusal of

the case file, it is evident that today 5th opportunity

was provided to the plaintiff for producing his

evidence but no steps were taken by him till date

nor any list of witness has been filed. Case is on

plaintiff's evidence since 18.07.2023 and on the

last date of hearing it was made clear that no

further opportunity would be provided. As sufficient

opportunities have already been granted to plaintiff

to lead his evidence, however, there is neither list

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:11:26 :::CIS

2

of witnesses on record nor any steps were taken

nor any valid ground has been shown for granting

of further adjournment for the purpose of

examination of his witnesses, hence, plaintiff

evidence is closed by the order of this court. Be

listed for DWs on 25.11.2025. Steps, if any, be

taken within 15 days.”

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

having perused the impugned order fas well as the other

documents appended with the petition, this Court does not finds

any infirmity therein. t

3. The zimni orders, which are appended with the

petition demonstrate that the issues were framed in the case on

07.06.2023. Thereafter, certain applications were filed by the

parties, which ultimately culminated into orders on 08.01.2025,

on which date, the case was ordered to be listed on 25.03.2025

for recording the statement of the PWs.

4. On 25.03.2025, the following order was passed by

the Court:-

“No PWs present. Time prayed. Granted as

last opportunity. Steps, if any, be taken in 7 days

failing which witness be produced on self-

responsibility. Be listed for PWs for 03.06.2025.”

4. Thereafter, on 03.06.2025, the following order was

passed by the Court:-

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:11:26 :::CIS

3

“No PW is present today. Time prayed..

Granted as exceptional last opportunity on sPelf-

responsibility. Be listed for PWs for 05.08.2025. It is

made clear that no further opportunity will be

provided.”

5. Thereafter, on 05.08.2025, the following order was

passed by the Court:-

“As per report, stepos not taken. No PW is

present. At this stage, Id counsel for plaintiff moved

an application seekin g adjournment of the case on

the ground that wittness is unable to appear before

this Court today as he is critically ill and is bed

ridden.

Heard. Record perused.

Perusal of file goes to show that today was

exceptional last opportunity provided to the plaintiff

to lead his evidence, however, today Id. counsel for

pClaintiff moved application for adjourning the case

as witness is critically ill and is bed ridden. The

application is not opposed by the opposite party. In

this case evidence not brought as witness is

critically ill and is bed ridden, therefore, the present

application is considered and allowed in the

interest of justice. Let, the matter be listed for PWs

on 08.10.2025 being exceptional last opportunity

i on self-responsibility. It is made clear that no further

H opportunity will be provided.”

6. On 08.10.2025, one PW Dinesh was present,

whose statement was recorded and no other PWs was present,

the learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff by

passing the impugned order.

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:11:26 :::CIS

4

7. As already observed by this Court hereinabove, this

Court does not find any infirmity therein. It is evident from. the

record that the impugned