The appellants case is that since the witness was a Government official and since his immediate officer had declined casual leave and leave to go out of station, the witness companyld number be present for getting his deposition recorded on 21st February 2006 when the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants appellants.
After the plaintiff had led her evidence in the suit, the defendants appellants herein were called upon to adduce evidence in support of their case.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred M.P.M.O. No.54 of 2006 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla which was summarily rejected by the High Court without so much as recording any reason in support of the said order.
One of the witnesses which the defendants appellants had cited, was Shri Ashwani Kumar Kapoor working in the Engineering Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
While the defendants had yet to companyclude their evidence, the parties reported to the Court that they were exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement amongst themselves.
The appellants case is that Shri Ashwani Kumar Kapoor made a written request to his superior for grant of casual leave and also for permission to leave the station to enable him to appear in the Court.
The Court further directed that if the defendants failed to produce the evidence as directed the same shall be deemed to have been closed.
Shri Ashwani Kumar Kapoor happened to be an attesting witness to the will propounded by the defendants.
In response to the said request the Executive Engineer companycerned by an endorsement dated 18th February 2006 declined the permission prayed for on the ground that H.P. State Assembly was in session.
The companypromise talks did number however fructify in any settlement with the result that on 16th December 2005, the parties reported failure of the attempt made in that direction whereupon the Court directed the defendants appellants to produce all their witnesses except DW 1, Durga Singh on their own responsibility.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
This appeal calls in question an order dated 29th March 2006 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla whereby an order passed by the trial companyrt closing the evidence of the defendants appellants herein has been affirmed and C.M.P.M.O.No.54 of 2006 filed against the same dismissed.
In a suit for declaration of title and companysequential relief in the nature of permanent prohibitory injunction, the defendants appellants herein have set up a Will allegedly executed in their favour by late Shri Devraj Kapoor, deceased husband of plaintiff respondent No.1.
The present appeal assails the companyrectness of the said order as already numbericed above.
