1 2025:CGHC:23367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 479 of 2025 1. Anil Kumar Mahobia S/o Late Rameshwar Ram Mahobia Aged About 47 Years R/o 114, Anand Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.), (Plaintiffs) 2. Smt. Anita Tamboli D/o Late Rameshwar Ram Mahobia Aged About 54 Years W/o Durga Prasad Mahobia, R/o In Front Of S.B.T. College, Kududand Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o A/4, Sector-2, Udya Society, Raipur (C.G.), (Defendants) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 12.06.2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned 11th Junior Civil Judge to MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.06.16 18:38:53 +0530 2 the Court of First Civil Judge Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 1877A/2008 by which the application under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected and right to evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the matter has been fixed for defendant evidence. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit before trial Court for declaration and injunction. The defendants have filed their written statement, issues have been framed and the matter was pending for plaintiff’s evidence. From the order sheet dated 13.03.2025, it is reflected that the matter was listed for plaintiff’s evidence on 12.06.2024, 26.06.2024, 11.07.2024, 24.07.2024, 19.09.2024, 10.10.2024, 05.11.2024, 11.12.2024, 29.01.2025, 03.02.2025, 07.03.2025, 07.03.2025 and the applications were moved by the plaintiff for adjournment which were considered by the trial Court and thereafter, the matter was taken up on 11.03.2025 for cross-examination of plaintiff as the plaintiff has already submitted his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit as per Order 18 Rule 4 CPC on 24.07.2024 and the matter was taken up on 19.09.2024 for further hearing. 3. The records of the case would demonstrate that the plaintiff on 11.03.2025 has examined himself and thereafter, the cross- examination was initiated, but it cannot be completed and thereafter, the matter was taken up on 13.03.2025 and on that day the plaintiff could not appear because of illness, therefore, adjournment was sought which was rejected by the learned trial Court by recording its finding that sufficient opportunity has been 3 given and the matter is pending since 2008 and more than 16 years have already been lapsed, therefore he has closed the right of the plaintiff and fixed the matter for evidence of defendant. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that if opportunity is granted to them it will be in accordance with principle of natural justice and fair play, as unless and until the witness is cross- examined or they may be given an opportunity to further lead evidence it will not be fair and would pray that an opportunity may be given to them to adduce entire evidence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the record, it is not in dispute that the matter was filed in the year 2008 and several opportunities are granted to lead evidence to plaintiff/petitioner which the plaintiff did not utilize for the reason best known to them. It is also not disputed that the petitioners haves submitted their examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit on 24.07.2024 and the cross-examination was started after about 6 months and thereafter, the cross-examination could not be completed and matter was listed on 13.03.2025. On that day the plaintiff has suffered illness, therefore, his right was closed, this is nothing but a glaring example of violation of principle of natural justice and fair play. The order sheet clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff was not at fault which may close the right to lead evidence, thereafter, the trial Court has committed gross illegality in closing 4 the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence and at least the trial Court should have adjourned the case on that count sand by extending an opportunity to lead evidence that will suffice the object of fair play and confidence on judicial system, therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P/4) deserves to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. 7. It is directed that the plaintiff shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed by the trial Court i.e. on 18.06.2025 and thereafter, the matter will be adjourned for one week and the plaintiff will be granted at least three opportunities to lead evidence which shall not more than 15 days and thereafter, the matter will be taken for defendant’s witness. 8. It is made clear that since this order has been passed in absence of defendant, therefore, the defendant is at liberty to move an application for recalling of the order if he is aggrieved with any order passed by this Court. 9. Before parting with this case, it is expedient for this Court to observe that though the matter is pending for the last 16 years, but the right of the party should not be merely closed on the count that the suit is 16 years old. Before taking that coercive step the trial Court should apply its mind, facts of the case, record of the case which is missing in the present case. This Court hope and trust that the trial Court should conduct the cases keeping in mind the principle of fair play and natural justice and will also see that unnecessary adjournment is not granted to the parties to delay the proceeding and will keep balance between emergent situation and 5 routine adjournment and will also not close the right of the parties on the pretext that the matter is pending for the last 10 or 15 years. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish