1 2025:CGHC:19518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 296 of 2024  Maniram Sahu S/o Rohila Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Basinjhori, Post And Tahsil- Sahaspur Lohara, Dist. Kabirdham, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Rukhelal Patel S/o Shordhan Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Basinjhori, Post And Tahisl Sahaspur Lohara, Dist. Kabirdham, C.G. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kawardha, Dist. Kabirdham, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Kalyani Kashyap, advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of Civil Suit no. 22-A/2022 pending before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge Class-II, 2 Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) and further be pleased to allow the petitioner/ plaintiff to produce his witnesses before the learned Trial Court and granting opportunity to produce plaintiff’s evidence. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deem fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the matter was set for plaintiffs’ evidence on 12.02.2024, the plaintiff appeared with his counsel but the learned Trial Court passed an order that plaintiff was earlier given last opportunity to lead evidence but he failed and right of the plaintiff to lead evidence was closed. He would further submit that the learned trial Court should have granted one more opportunity after imposing certain cost. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that on earlier dates, the plaintiffs or their counsel appeared before the learned Court below and took adjournment but on 12.02.2024, learned trial Court closed the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence. 5. The 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 3 respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.” 6. 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 petitioners/plaintiffs to lead evidence. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 12.02.2024 passed in C.S. No. 22-A/2022 is quashed and the learned trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead evidence, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable to defendants No. 1. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 9. The learned trial Court is directed to provide only one opportunity and if the plaintiffs fail to lead evidence, their right shall be closed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya