1 2025:CGHC:3674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 25 of 2023 1. Devika Gupta D/o Yogesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Ratna Gupta. 2. Ratna Gupta Wd/o Late Yogesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Behind Dinesh General Store, Bazar Chowk, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Gangotri Gupta Wd/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Gupta Aged About 68 Years R/o Sarkanda, Tahsil Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Saraswati Gupta D/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Gupta, W/o Shri Satyanarayan Gupta Aged About 46 Years R.O Gudbhaga, District Birgarh, Orissa. 3. Smt. Vandana Gupta D/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Gupta, W/o Shri Yogendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Pushplata Gupta D/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Gupta, W/o Shri Vikram Gupta Aged About 41 Years R/o Salka (Udaipur), Tahsil Udaipur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Rajkumari Gupta D/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Gupta, W/o Shri Rajesh Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Ramgudipara, Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Present R/o Quarter No.014, Sector 4 Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P/1), passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), passed in Civil Suit No. 9- A/2016, in the matter of Smt. Gangotri Gupta & Others v. Santosh Kumar Gupta & others and the application filed by petitioners under section 151 of Cod of Civil Procedure may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application under Section 151 of CPC was moved by defendants No. 2 & 3/petitioners to issue summons to defendant No. 1 for recording his evidence. He would further submit that the application so moved by the petitioners was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.11.2022 stating that there is no collusion between defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs. He would also submit that defendant No. 1 is supporting the case of the plaintiffs; therefore, cross examination of defendant No. 1 is necessary for just adjudication of the case. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of M.P. in the matter of Shiv Pratap Singh Tomar vs. Seema Tomar and others, 2018 (4) MPLJ 74. 3. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Malviya, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 6 would submit that there is a specific provision under Order 16 Rule 7A of CPC for summoning the witness. He would further 3 submit that if the petitioners would have moved an application according to the provisions of the above referred order and rule, the learned trial Court would have allowed such application. He would also submit that the application under Section 151 of CPC was moved after the cross- examination of defendant No. 1. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 6. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Admittedly, a Civil Suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to survey Nos. 17, 105, 400, 518, 519, 1110, 1215, 1507 & 1780 situated at Village Kalmitar, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur. 7. It appears that defendant No. 1 filed his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC on 05.04.2022 and he was cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiffs. An application was moved by defendants No. 2 & 3/petitioners on 26.04.2022 seeking therein permission to cross-examine defendant No. 1 as he supported the case of the plaintiffs. 8. In the matter of Shiv Pratap Singh Tomar (supra), the High Court of M.P. held that the person against whom the evidence is given should have an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but in the present case, defendants No. 2 & 3 or their counsels were present before the learned Court below on 05.04.2022 when defendant No. 1 was cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiffs, and they had sufficient opportunity to cross- examine that witness. 9. After a lapse of 20 days, there was no occasion for defendants No. 2 & 3 to move an application under Section 151 of CPC to recall the said witness 4 for cross examination. There may or may not be a collusion between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and that is not an issue involved in the present case however since the petitioners could not avail the opportunity to cross examine; I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant petition. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). d Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant