1 2025:CGHC:22675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 457 of 2025 1. Roshanlal Gayakwad S/o Late Premdas Gayakwad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Bhansoj, P.S. And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mohan Lal Dewangan S/o Jageshwar Dewangan R/o Village And Post Bhansoj, P.S. And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned 7th Civil Judge Junior Class, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 191-B/2018 by which the application filed by the defendant for giving an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness has been rejected on the count that on 06.12.2024 the right of the defendant to cross-examination has already been closed. MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.06.09 17:17:47 +0530 2 2. Brief facts reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 31,300/- against the defendant before the learned 7th Civil Judge Junior Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) which was registered as Civil Suit No. 191-B/2018. The defendant filed written statement and the trial Court framed issues. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined only one witness Mohan Lal Dewangan plaintiff himself, but his cross-examination could not be done and right to cross-examination of defendant has been closed by the trial Court on 06.12.2024. Thereafter, the defendant has examined himself, later on the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 of CPC on 28.01.2025 contending that on 06.12.2024 defendant's senior counsel was not available, therefore, an application for adjournment was sought which was not considered by the trial Court, and accordingly, his right to cross-examination has been closed and have prayed for recalling of the order. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) by the learned trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved with this order, the defendant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India mainly contending that if an opportunity of hearing is granted to cross- examination to sole witness of the plaintiff, then it will be in accordance with the concept of principle of natural justice and fair play, thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The facts reflected from the record are that the learned trial Court 3 has already closed the right of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff on 06.12.2024 and thereafter, the defendant has already examined the witness, but unless and until the witness is cross- examined by the defendant the truthness or correctness of the statement cannot be taken into consideration. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. It has been also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is listed on 11.06.2024 before the learned trial Court for final argument. The proceeding of the trial Court be differ for one week and the matter will be taken up on 18.06.2025, on the day the plaintiff witness will remain present and the cross-examination will be done on the same day and arguments will be concluded within further one week. 7. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish