Ashad Beg and Anr. Vs Balwant Singh and Ors.

“i) That the Order dated 29-07-2025 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 98 of 2014 where by the evidence of the Petitioner/Defendants has been closed by the order of the court may kindly be set-aside and one opportunity may kindly be granted to the Defendants to lead their

¶16

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

¶17

2

¶18

2025:HHC:34100

¶19

evidence in the interest of justice.”

¶20

The impugned order reads as under:-

¶21

“29.07.2025 Present: Sh. Nitin Gupta, Id. Adv. for the plaintiff. Sh. Ankush Gupta, ld. Adv. for the defendant.

¶22

No DWs present. Time prayed. Perusal of file shows that case is being listed for DWs since 17.07.2017. Sufficient opportunities has been granted to DWs despite which no DWs has been examined. Accordingly, no further opportunity is justified and same is closed by the order of Court.

¶23

Be listed for arguments on 09.09.2025.”

¶24

In terms of the impugned order, the right of the

¶25

defendants to lead evidence had been closed by mentioning therein that the case was being listed for the said purpose since

¶26

July, 2017 and till the passing of the impugned order, no DW was present.

¶27

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioners though vehemently submitted that the reason as to why evidence could not be lead initially was due to the ill health of the original defendant, who passed away in the year 2020 and thereafter due to the fact that the present petitioners, who were subsequently impleaded as legal representatives were not

3

2025:HHC:34100

aware of the case.

This Court is not impressed with the said contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This is for the reason that a perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrate that though the case was listed for recording the statement of DWs first time on 17.07.2017, no DW was recorded till the death of late Mr. Asgar Beg Mirza, who was the original defendant and who in terms of the averments made in the petition, died in the year 2020. This means that the original defendant took no steps to lead evidence for almost three years. Not only this, it is not the case of the petitioners herein that they were impleaded as partydefendants recently before the impugned order was passed. In terms of the material which is before this Court, the present petitioners after their impleadment as defendants were given reasonable opportunities by the learned Court below to lead evidence, yet they failed to do so. As petitioners have failed to lead evidence since the year 2017, no indulgence as is being prayed for, can be granted.

¶33