1 2025:CGHC:34806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 678 of 2025  Janardan Gupta S/o Shri Pawan Gupta Aged About 34 Years Profession - Business, R/o Gol Bazar, Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Satyanarayan Kashyap (Deceased) Through The Legal Heirs 1. Smt. Dulari Alias Dulla Bai W/o Late Satyanarayan Kashyap, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Gokul Nagar, Ghuru, Tehsil - Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Monu Kashyap S/o Late Satyanarayan Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Gokul Nagar, Ghuru, Tehsil - Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Vivek Kashyap S/o Late Satyanarayan Kashyap Aged About 34 Years R/o Gokul Nagar, Ghuru, Tehsil - Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/plaintiff : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 63A/2019 by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby an application moved under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected and the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence has been closed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff/petitioner SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.24 14:08:48 +0530 2 filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract. He would further submit that a written statement was filed on 13.07.2022 by the legal representatives of the original defendant. The learned trial Court framed issues, and the parties led their evidence. He would also submit that on 28.03.2023, the plaintiff filed evidence of the witnesses on the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and took various adjournments to produce those witnesses for the cross-examination. He would contend that the said application came up for hearing before the learned Court below on 11.04.2025, and the learned trial Court closed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence on the ground that 27 opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner. It is stated that the application moved under Order 17 Rule 14 of CPC was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.02.2025, but the learned trial Court rejected the application moved under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC and closed the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence. He would further contend that on earlier occasions, the case was adjourned on different counts, and thus, the reason assigned by the learned trial Court is erroneous. 3. I have heard Mr. Choubey, and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. In the present case, the petitioner wanted to examine his witnesses and therefore moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, which has been rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that 27 opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner and thus, the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed. The application moved by the petitioner for the recall of witnesses under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was not maintainable because the plaintiff wanted to examine his witnesses, whose evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC were placed on record. 3 5. Taking into consideration the fact that on the previous dates, the case was adjourned on different counts and affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC were already placed on record, the order dated 11.04.2025 is hereby set aside, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 6,000/- payable to defendants/respondents No. 1 to 3. With regard to the examination of witnesses, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant