1 2025:CGHC:20095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 410 of 2025  Virendra Singh Saluja S/o Shri Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Businessman, R/o Azad Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tah. And District - Raipur (C.G.), (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Jaspal Singh Saluja S/o Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 67 Years R/o Govind Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Pandri, Raipur, Tah. And District - Raipur (C.G.), (Defendants) 2. Amarjeet Saluja S/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 58 Years R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tah. And District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Jasbeer Kaur W/o Devendra Singh Arora Aged About 62 Years D/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja, R/o Guru Gobind Nagar, Pandri, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4. Smt. Arvindar Kaur W/o Jasbeer Singh Arora Aged About 55 Years D/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja, R/o Dharampura Road, Jagdalpur (C.G. 5. Smt. Rasmeet Kaur W/o Paramjeet Singh Chhabra Aged About 48 Years D/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja, R/o Adarsh Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), (The Cause Title Of The Order Impugned Has Been Wrongly Indicated To 1a To 1d As A Plaintiff Whereas They Are Made Defendant In The Trial Court) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 02-05-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Third District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Case no. 168-A/ 2015 dated 15.04.2025 whereby right of the plaintiff/ petitioner to lead 2 evidence has been closed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit was filed by the petitioner herein for eviction and damages against the defendants on 20.11.2015. He further submits that written statement was filed by the defendants and issues were framed and plaintiff’s evidence was going on. He contends that on 19.03.2025, plaintiff appeared and filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, but on the same date, defendants filed application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC and case was adjourned. He also submits that on 27.03.2025, the case was fixed for evidence of the remaining plaintiff’s witness and examination-in- chief of one Ravishankar Dewangan was recorded and again application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC was moved by the defendants and same was allowed. He contends that on 15.04.2025, plaintiff’s witness Ravishankar Dewangan was cross-examined by the defendants’ counsel and in absence of remaining plaintiff’s witnesses, learned trial Court in an arbitrary manner closed the right of plaintiff to lead evidence. He further contends that on earlier two dates, applications under order 17 Rule 1 of CPC were moved by the defendants and case was adjourned whereas on 15.04.2025, Ravishankar Dewangan was cross-examined and remaining witnesses were not present therefore, learned trial Court recorded a perverse finding while closing the right of plaintiff to lead evidence. He prays to set-aside the order dated 15.04.2025. 3) Heard. 4) Perusal of the documents annexed along with this petition reveals that on 19.03.2025 and 27.03.2025, case was adjourned on applications moved by the defendants under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC. On 3 15.04.2025, one plaintiff witness was cross-examined by the defendants. It is clear that on the said date, plaintiff and his one witness were present before the Court, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to close the right of plaintiff 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 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 plaintiff to lead evidence. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Case no. 168-A/ 2015 is set-aside and the learned trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence. 8) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya