2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 1361 of 2025 Ku. Poonam Choubey, D/o Pt. Ramesh Kumar Choubey, aged about 44 Years, Occupation- Cultivator, Caste - Bramhan, R/o Village- Gharghoda, Ward No. 10, Tahsil- Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - Manorath Prasad Purseth S/o Govind Ram Purseth Aged About 62 Years Occupation- Service, Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Gharghoda (Nawapara), Police Station And Tahsil- Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Pt. Ramesh Kumar Choubey S/o Late Murlidhar Choubey Aged About 72 Years Occupation- Jyotishi Pandit, Caste- Bramhan, R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Rituraj Choubey S/o Pt. Ramesh Kumar Choubey Aged About 39 Years Occupation- Shopkeeper, Caste- Bramhan, R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Devraj Choubey S/o Pt. Ramesh Kumar Choubey Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Shopkeeper, Caste- Bramhan, R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Bobby Choubey S/o Pt. Ramesh Kumar Choubey Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Shopkeeper, Caste- Bramhan, R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil- Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Yamini Sharma D/o Pt. Ramesh Kumar Choubey Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Housewife, Wife Of Rakesh Sharma (Krishi Upaj Mandi), R/o Village And Post- Pahariya, Tahsil- Balauda (Wrongly Mentioned As Balaud), District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Neelam Dwivedi D/o Pt. Ramesh Kumar Choubey Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Housewife, Wife Of Rajmani Dwivedi (Police), Caste- Bramhan, R/o Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 : None appeared despite service. For Respondent No.8 : Shri T.L. Bareth, Advocate. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.11 12:45:27 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 03/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghargoda, District – Raigargh (C.G.) in civil suit No. 9-A/2018 by which the right of the petitioenr/plaintiff to lead evidence was closed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who happens to be the plaintiff had filed civil suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and declaring the sale deed dated 06.09.1999 has illegal, void of ab-initio and not binding upon the petitioner / plaintiff. He submits that written statement has already been filed, issues have been framed and the matter was listed for the plaintiff’s evidence. He further submits that the petitioner / plaintiff has also been examined as witness. Though on couple of occasions, the case was listed before the learned Civil Judge for recording of further evidence of the plaintiff, on the date of impugned order, other witnesses of the petitioner / plaintiff were not present. Therefore, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. was rejected by the impugned order. He submits that in order to prove the pleadings of the plaint, the petitioner / plaintiff is required to lead further evidence and if the opportunity is not granted, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner / plaintiff. Thus, this writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Opposing the submission, Shri Patel, Advocate vehemently argued that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner/plaintiff and when she failed to examine her remaining witnesses, the application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. filed by her was correctly rejected by the learned Civil -3- Judge. He submits that the suit was filed in the year 2018 and thus this Court may not show any indulgence interfering with the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 7, and State is just a formal party. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the document appended with the writ petition would indicates that the petitioner has filed the suit for the reliefs as stated above. It also appears that plaintiff has examined and also cros-examined herself. Of Course, from the order sheet appended with the writ petition it appears that some opportunities were granted to the petitioner / plaintiff to record statement of her remaining witnesses, and on the date of impugned order, her application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., has been rejected. 8. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that granting one opportunity to the petitioner / plaintiff to examine her remaining witnesses would serve the end of justice. 9. Thus impugned order dated 18.11.2025 is hereby set aside and the application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner / plaintiff shall examine the remaining witnesses before the learned Civil Judge on the date to be fixed by the learned Civil Judge for this purpose. 10. With these observations and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashsih