-1- 2025:CGHC:34804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 681 of 2025 Virendra Singh Saluja S/o Late Shri Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Businessman, R/o Azad Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tah. And District Raipur C.G. (Plaintiff). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Jaspal Singh Saluja S/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 67 Years R/o Govind Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Pandri, Raipur, Tah. And District Raipur C.G. 2 - Amarjeet Saluja S/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 58 Years R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tah. And District Raipur C.G. 3 - Smt. Jasbeer Kaur W/o Devendra Singh Arora, D/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 62 Years R/o Guru Govind Nagar, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Smt. Arvindar Kaur W/o Jasbeer Singh Arora, D/o Late Mangal Singh Salulja Aged About 55 Years R/o Dharampura Road, District Jagdalpur (Bastar) C.G. 5 - Smt. Rasmeet Kaur W/o Paramjeet Singh Chhabra, D/o Late Mangal Singh Saluja Aged About 48 Years R/o Adarsh Chowk, Sundar Nagar, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.07.2025 1) The petitioner is assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the learned IIIrd District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 168-A/2015, whereby the learned trial Court has declined to grant an -2- opportunity to the plaintiff to examine witness Chhabilal Hathile. 2) The brief facts of the case are as under:- A. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction and damages against the defendants on 20.11.2015. The written statement was filed by the defendants, and issues were framed. The plaintiff’s evidence commenced thereafter. B. On 19.03.2025, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. On the same day, the defendants filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, and the matter was adjourned. Subsequently, on 27.03.2025, the case was fixed for recording of the evidence of the remaining plaintiff witnesses. On that date, the examination-in-chief of Ravishankar Dewangan (a plaintiff witness) was recorded, and once again, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC was moved by the defendants, which was allowed. C. On 15.04.2025, the said witness Ravishankar Dewangan was cross- examined. However, the other plaintiff witnesses were absent. Despite the previous adjournments having been granted on the basis of the defendants’ applications, the learned trial Court closed the plaintiff’s right to lead further evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No. 410 of 2025, which was finally disposed of on 02.05.2025, with direction to the learned trial Court to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence. D. In compliance with the said direction, the learned trial Court fixed the case for plaintiff’s evidence and plaintiff examine his witnesses & closed evidence. E. The plaintiff subsequently submitted the affidavit of Chhabilal Hathile -3- under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC on 30.06.2025. However, the learned trial Court rejected the said affidavit and declined to permit his examination, solely on the ground that one opportunity had already been granted in compliance with the High Court’s order in WP(C) No. 410/2025, and that opportunity stood exhausted. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical and mechanical approach in rejecting the request to examine the said witness. He submits that the affidavit of the witness was already filed, and the trial Court ought to have permitted his examination in the interest of justice. It is further submitted that the observation made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order passed in WP(C) No. 410/2025 does not amount to a prohibition against granting any further opportunity if the affidavit was already filed and only formal examination remained. However, the learned trial Court interpreted the earlier writ court order rigidly and declined to allow the plaintiff to examine Chhabilal Hathile. He would pray that the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 is liable to be set aside, and the plaintiff may be permitted to examine the said witness. 4) Heard. 5) In W.P.(C) No. 410 of 2025, while disposing of the matter, this Court in paragraphs 6 & 7 recorded the following observations: “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 plaintiff to lead evidence. 7.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Case no. 168-A/ 2015 is set-aside and the learned trial Court is directed to provide one -4- opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence.” 6) Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition, the learned trial Court granted the plaintiff one opportunity to lead evidence. However, thereafter, the trial Court declined to grant any further opportunity, holding that the plaintiff had already availed the opportunity granted by the High Court; thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law in passing the order impugned. The impugned order does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim