1 2025:CGHC:11303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 211 of 2025 Bharat Lal Korram S/o Shri Late Nohar Singh Korram Aged About 73 Years R/o Village, Stationpara, Ward No. 12, District Rajandgaon, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vijay Singh Korram Aged 40 Years, Janardan Singh Korram, Both Are Resident Of Village Teka Hardi, Tah. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) 2. Gunesh Bai Korram Wd/o Janardan Singh Korram Aged About 60 Years Both Are Resident Of Village Teka Hardi, Tah. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07/03/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner who is plaintiff before the learned Court below has assailed the order dated 06.02.2025 whereby right of the plaintiff to lead evidence has been closed. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for AJINKYA PANSARE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.07 17:11:45 +0530 2 declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession. On 06.02.2025, application U/o 17 Rule 1 of CPC for adjournment was moved by the plaintiff but the learned trial Court rejected the application and closed the right of the plaintiff to cross-examine defendants’ witnesses on the ground that earlier on three consecutive dates, i.e. 20.11.2024, 06.12.2024 and 10.11.2025, plaintiff failed to cross- examine the defendants’ witnesses. Particularly, last opportunity was granted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/- and the said cost has not been deposited till date. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of illness of plaintiff’s counsel, namely, Mr. A.D. Vaishnav, application U/o 17 Rule 1 of CPC was moved and same has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He prays that plaintiff has a good case on merit and in the interest of justice, he may be allowed one opportunity to cross-examine defendants’ witnesses. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 5) Heard. 6) 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 3 opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court ought to have afforded one more opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine defendants’ witnesses. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 06.02.2025 is hereby quashed and the application moved by the plaintiff is hereby allowed. Learned trial Court shall grant one opportunity to the plaintiff to cross examine defendants’ witnesses, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- along with the earlier imposed cost of Rs. 2,500/- payable to the defendants No. 1 and 2 on the next date of hearing. 8) However, if the petitioner/ plaintiff fails to cross-examine defendants or their witnesses on the date given by learned trial Court, the said Court would be at liberty to close the right of plaintiff to cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses. 9) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya