1 2025:CGHC:30731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 698 of 2023 1 - Tekram S/o Late Chameli @ Phoolkumari Aged About 40 Years R/o Villlage Litaipali, Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh (C.G.),..(Plaintiff) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Netranand S/o Late Sewak Ram Patel Aged About 71 Years R/o Village - Aodekera Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.),..(Defendants) 2 - Bhagat Ram S/o Late Sewak Ram Patel Aged About 57 Years R/o Village - Aodekera,, Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Bhoj Kunwar @ Bhim Kunwar S/o Late Sewak Ram Patel Aged About 66 Years R/o Village - Aodekera,, Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Kheer Kunwar S/o Late Sewak Ram Patel Aged About 61 Years R/o Village - Aodekera,, Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Chandrika Prasad S/o Shri Ramdayal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Chhatamura, Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Indira Prasad S/o Shri Ramdayal Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Chhatamura, Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgjarh Through Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Bharat Lal S/o Late Chameli @ Phoolkumari Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Litaipali, Tahsil - Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.),..(Plaintiff) SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 to 6 : Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.07.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case from the court below. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to set aside the order dated 21.06.2023 (Ann.P/1) passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge Class-2 of 2nd additional judge, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh in Civil Suit No. A/134/2017 (Tekram and others Vs Netranand and other) and consequently the application filed under order 17 Rule 1 of CPC may be allowed and direct the trial court to grant one opportunity to adduce evidence of plaintiff's witnesses. 10.3 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 3 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and possession over the suit property. The defendants appeared before the learned trial Court and filed their written statement. Learned trial Court framed issues and the case was set for the plaintiff’s evidence for the first time on 29.3.2023. The petitioner sought adjournments on 4.4.2023, 24.4.2023, 28.4.2023, 2.5.2023, 5.5.2023, 17.5.2023, 14.6.2023 and 21.6.2023. 3. On 21.6.2023, the learned trial Court rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC and closed the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to unavoidable circumstances, the plaintiff/petitioner could not adduce evidence of his witnesses on the said date before the learned trial Court. He would further submit that the learned trial Court ought to have afforded one more opportunity after imposing suitable cost. He would pray to quash the order dated 30.6.2023. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 6 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the learned trial Court afforded the sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, however, as the petitioner failed to examine himself and his -4- witnesses therefore the right to lead evidence was closed by order dated 21.6.2023. He would further submit that as the petitioner was not diligent in examining the witnesses, therefore, no case is made out for interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the State would support the order passed by the Court below. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 8. From a perusal of the order-sheet, it is apparent that the learned trial Court afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and examine his witnesses. When the petitioner failed to examine his witnesses, the learned trial Court closed the right to lead evidence. The order dated 21.6.2023 passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is being granted to the petitioner to lead evidence and examine all his witnesses, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to defendants No.1 to 6. 9. Learned trial Court shall provide only one date to the plaintiff to examine his witnesses and no further adjournment shall be granted. If the petitioner fails to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to defendants No.1 to 6 on the date fixed by the learned trial Court, 5 this order shall lose its efficacy. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi