1 2025:CGHC:28845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 572 of 2025  Sourabh Chandrakar S/o Shri Puranlal Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Kodiya, Post - Pauvara, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Yogendra Sahu S/o Late K.P. Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Bhatagaon (Ranchirai), Tahsil Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.) Present Address Village- Gunderdehi, Tahsil - Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 30-06-2025 1) Petitioner/ defendant has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge–Senior Division, Gunderdehi in Civil Suit No. B/4/2021 dated 05.05.2025 whereby right of defendant to lead evidence has been closed. 2) Facts of the present case are that respondent/ plaintiff filed civil suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the petitioner/ defendant on 15.06.2021. Defendant filed written statement on 11.10.2022. Trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff examined his 2 witnesses. Thereafter, on 17.01.2025, case was set for examination of defendant’s witnesses ; plaintiff moved application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC and sought adjournment which was allowed. On 05.02.2025, defendant moved application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC which was allowed. On 11.03.2025, counsel appearing for plaintiff again sought time to cross-examine defendant’s witnesses. On 05.04.2025, though witnesses were present but counsel for defendant sought time to lead evidence. On 05.05.2025, application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC was moved by defendant and same was rejected and right of defendant to lead evidence was closed on ground that earlier 11 opportunities have been granted to defendant. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant submits that on 17.01.2025, evidence on affidavit was submitted by the defendant before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that on 17.01.2025 and 11.03.2025, counsel for the plaintiff sought adjournment to cross-examine ; on 05.02.2025, 05.04.2025 and 05.05.2025, defendant sought adjournment, therefore the finding recorded by the Trial Court is erroneous. 4) Heard. 5) The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Deepak Vs. Ramesh Sethi 1 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 1. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381 3 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 petitioner/defendant to lead evidence. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 05.05.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. B/4/2021 is quashed and the learned Trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 3,000/- payable to plaintiff. 8) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 9) The learned trial Court is directed to provide only one opportunity and if the defendant fails to lead evidence, his right shall be closed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya