1 2025:CGHC:10751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 201 of 2025 Meena Agrawal W/o Sunil Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o Shikshak Colony, Khapri, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Nitika Agrawal W/o Vikash Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Main Road, Takhatpur, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Vikash Agrawal S/o Ramavatar Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Main Road, Takhatpur, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 05/03/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner who is defendant before the learned Court below has assailed the order dated 05.02.2025 whereby right of the defendant to lead evidence has been closed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mesne profit. He further submits that on 01.02.2025, case was set for cross-examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses but no one appeared on that date. He contends that on 05.02.2025, 2 learned trial Court while recording a finding that earlier on 12.09.2024 and 16.01.2025 no one appeared to cross-examine plaintiffs’ witnesses, closed the right of defendant to cross-examine plaintiffs’ witnesses. He prays that petitioner has a good case on merit and in the interest of justice, she may be allowed one opportunity to cross- examine plaintiffs’ witnesses. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 4) Heard. 5) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Deepak Vs. Ramesh Sethi, 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381 has held as under: "13. The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. No doubt, where a party is unconscionably indolent, the Court may put its foot down and close the right of the party to lead evidence; else, as adversarial litigations are meant to be tried after allowing the parties to an adequate opportunity to place their respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.” It is trite law that the Court should not be hyper-technical in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court ought to have afforded one more opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order passed by learned trial Court dated 05.02.2025 is hereby quashed. Learned trial Court shall grant one opportunity to the defendant to cross examine plaintiffs’ witnesses, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the plaintiffs on the next date of hearing. 7) However, if the petitioner fails to cross-examine plaintiffs or their 3 witnesses on the date given by learned trial Court, the said Court would be at liberty to close the right of defendant to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses. 8) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya