1 2025:CGHC:5431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 97 of 2025 1. Madan Manjhi S/o Durjan Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Jurrda, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh. 2. Balbhadra Manjhi S/o Durjan Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Bairagi Manjhi S/o Durjan Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Bhol Singh Manjhi S/o Durjan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sukru S/o Late Lala R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Mahadev S/o Late Sarno R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Manbodh S/o Late Sarno R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Manglu S/o Late Sarno R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Haldhar S/o Late Budhu R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Lab Kurnar S/o Late Budhu R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Dharmu S/o Late Budhu R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 8. Gosai S/o Late Ganesh R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 9. Bairagi S/o Late Ganesh R/o Village Jurrda, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 10. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector/district President, District Raigarh, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.01 10:37:55 +0530 2 (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the learned court below to give opportunity for evidence of plaintiffs and therefore decide the case on merits. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession against the defendants. The issues were framed on 13.12.2019 by the learned trial Court and case was fixed for plaintiffs’ evidence on 18.09.2024. The plaintiffs’ witness, namely, Bhol Singh was examined on 23.10.2024. The right of the plaintiffs to lead further evidence was closed vide order dated 07.12.2024. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to the learned trial Court to afford an opportunity to lead evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned trial Court has fixed the case for the defendants’ evidence without any cogent reason. He would further submit that the learned trial Court ought to have afforded sufficient opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead evidence. He would also submit that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court is contrary to the Civil Procedure Code. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 07.12.2024 and the order has not been challenged in the present petition; therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order-sheets. 6. The petitioners/plaintiffs have not annexed a copy of the plaint in the present petition. On 12.09.2024, the case was set for the plaintiffs’ evidence. On 23.10.2024, the plaintiffs’ witness, namely, Bhol Singh was examined and the case was adjourned for 24.10.2024. On 24.10.2024, an adjournment was sought by the plaintiffs. On 06.11.2024, 13.11.2024, 27.11.2024, 28.11.2024, 04.12.2024 and 06.12.2024, the case was adjourned at the request of the plaintiffs. On 07.12.2024, the plaintiffs again sought adjournment whereas the case was set for plaintiffs’ evidence; therefore, the learned trial Court closed the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence. The plaintiffs have not challenged the order dated 07.12.2024 in the present case. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence was closed, and the order has not been challenged, no direction can be issued to the learned trial Court to afford an opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead evidence. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant