-1- 2025:CGHC:62 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1176 of 2024 1 - Pradeep Verma, S/o Late Shri Kamalnarayan Verma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Tekari, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mrs. Rukmani Verma Mother Mrs. Pemin Bai Verma, Father Late Latelu Verma Aged About 76 Years R/o C/o Raghunandan Verma, Village Tekari, Tehsil Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mrs. Devki Bai Madharia W/o Late Dr. Ankat Ram Madharia Aged About 77 Years R/o Village Pachpedi Tehsil Bhilai-3 District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nandkumar Verma Mother Mrs. Pemin Bai Verma, Father Late Latelu Verma Aged About 61 Years, 5 - Mrs. Ahilya Verma Mother Mrs. Pemin Bai Verma, Father Late Latelu Verma Aged About 87 Years, 6 - Mrs. Anusuiya Verma Mother Mrs. Pemin Bai Verma, Father Late Latelu Verma Aged About 67 Years, 7 - Mrs. Kalyani Verma Mother Mrs. Pemin Bai Verma, Father Late Latelu Verma Aged About 58 Years, Respondents No. 4 to 7 R/o C/o Raghunandan Verma, Village Tekari, Tehsil Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Mrs. Shantidevi Verma W/o Late Shri Kamalnarayan Verma Aged About 76 Years R/o Village Tekari, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant In The Civil Suit). 9 - Lalit Verma S/o Late Shri Kamalnarayan Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Tekari, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant In The Civil Suit). 10 - Mrs. Sheela Verma D/o Late Shri Kamalnarayan Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Tekari, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant In The Civil Suit) ... Petitioner(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- versus 1 - Dev Kumar Verma (Dead)through Lrs. (A) Smt. Laxmi Verma Nil 1.1 - Smt. Laxmi Verma W/o Late Dev Kumar Verma Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Santra Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff In The Civil Suit) 1.2 - Manoj Kumar Verma S/o Late Dev Kumar Verma Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Santra Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff In The Civil Suit) 1.3 - Rajendra Kumar Verma S/o Late Dev Kumar Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Santra Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff In The Civil Suit) 1.4 - Khoobchand Verma S/o Late Dev Kumar Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Santra Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff In The Civil Suit) 1.5 - Sanat Kumar Verma S/o Late Dev Kumar Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Santra Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff In The Civil Suit) 1.6 - Saumya Verma D/o Late Dharmendra Kumar Verma Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Uncle Manoj Kumar Verma, R/o Village Santra Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff In The Civil Suit) 2 - Jivrakhan Lal Verma S/o Late Chhatar Singh Verma Aged About 78 Years R/o Village Selud, Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Mrs. Leena Verma Husband Late Rakesh Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Tonatar, Post Arjuni, Tehsil Balodabazar And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Mrs. Chandra Kiran Verma Husband Shri Ishwar Verma Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 66 (B) Risali Sector, Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Rama Gauri Verma Husband Shri Dinesh Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khopali, Pasgaon Utai Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - Prahlad Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Gokul Yadav R/o Village Selud Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Chhattisgarh Government Through District Collector Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh 8 - Swaraj Baghel Mother Smt. Kamin Bai Baghel, Father Late Shri Banshilal Baghel R/o Village Belaudi Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh 9 - Azad Baghel Mother Smt. Kamin Bai Baghel, Father Late Shri Banshilal R/o Village Belaudi Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Deepak Kapoor Mother Smt. Kamin Bai Baghel, Father Late Shri Banshilal, Husband Shri K.K. Kapoor R/o Gaya Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg By - Azad Baghel R/o Village Belaudi Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh 11 - Raghunandan Verma Mother Mrs. Pemin Bai Verma, Father Late Latelu Verma -3- Aged About 74 Years R/o C/o Raghunandan Verma, Village Tekari, Tehsil Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant In The Civil Suit). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Luv Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.01.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record of Civil Suit No. 15A/2017, pending before Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, District Durg, CG for its kind perusal. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Patan, Distt. Durg, CG in Civil Suit No.15A/2013 and allow the applications attached with the Annexure P/1. 10.3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Mr. Rohitashva Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, possession, and partition of the suit property. He contended that petitioners/defendants No. 10 to 20 were arrayed as defendants subsequently pursuant to an application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, vide order dated 20.09.2023. He further contended that defendants No. 12 and 16 were not in a position to attend the Court to adduce evidence, therefore, an application under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC was moved on 29.11.2024. He also submitted that another application was moved under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC seeking adjournment on the same date. He argued that the learned trial -4- Court rejected the application moved under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC on the ground that defendants No. 10 to 20 failed to produce medical documents along with the application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC. He argued that the learned trial Court ought to have afforded time to lead evidence while rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC. He would further contend that the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC and closed the right of the petitioners to lead evidence. He would contend that the case was fixed for evidence for the second time; therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have granted one opportunity to lead evidence while rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Luv Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singh and submit that sufficient time was afforded to defendants No. 10 to 20 to lead evidence; thus, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the applications moved by defendants No. 10 to 20. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 5) From a perusal of the documents, including the order sheets, it is clear that defendants No. 10 to 20 were arrayed as defendants subsequently vide order dated 20.09.2023. Defendants No. 10 to 20 moved an application under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC to examine defendants No. 12 and 16 on Commission on medical grounds. The learned trial Court closed the right of defendants No. 10 to 20 to lead evidence as no medical document was produced. As the petitioners failed to produce medical documents, therefore, the application moved under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. On the same date, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC was moved -5- seeking adjournment, which was also rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the civil suit has been pending for more than 5 years. 6) It is not a case where several opportunities were afforded to defendants No. 10 to 20 to lead evidence and they failed to avail it. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC was rejected, is hereby quashed. While affirming the rejection of the application under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC, the application moved by defendants No. 10 to 20 under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC is allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to fix a date for defendants No. 10 to 20 to lead evidence. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim