1 2025:CGHC:4645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1185 of 2024 1 - Sanjay Kumar Mishra S/o Ramkumar Mishra Aged About 25 Years R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Village Urla, Post Abhanpur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Manish Mishra S/o Late Krishna Kumar Mishra R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2 - Smt. Manjulata Mishra W/o Late Krishna Kumar Mishra R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 3 - Ku. Ritu Mishra D/o Late Krishna Kumar Mishra R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 4 - Ram Kumar Mishra S/o Late Ram Jeevan Mishra Aged About 64 Years R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Village Urla, Post Abhanpur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Kamal Kumar Mishra (Dead) Through Lrs Nil 5.1 - Smt. Neetu Devi Mishra D/o Late Kamal Kumar Mishra R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5.2 - Ku. Rashmi Mishra D/o Late Kamal Kumar R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5.3 - Bhagwati Tripathi D/o Rasiyat Prasad Tripathi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tatikasa, Tahsil And District Kawardha Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 5.4 - Minor Bhaskar S/o Bhagwati Prasad Tripathi Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Father Bhagwati Tripathi, R/o Village Tatikasa, Tahsil And District Kawardha Chhattisgarh 5.5 - Minor Ujjawal S/o Bhagwati Prasad Tripathi Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Father Bhagwati Tripathi, R/o Village Tatikasa, Tahsil And District Kawardha Chhattisgarh 6 - Deenbandhu @ Hardev Prasad Mishra S/o Ramkumar Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Village Urla, Post Abhanpur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Pramod Kumar Mishra S/o Ramkumar Mishra R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Village Urla, Post Abhanpur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Dilip Kumar Mishra (Dead) Through Lrs Nil 8.1 - Smt. Urmila Devi Mishra W/o Kamal Kumar Mishra R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8.2 - Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra Wd/o Dilip Kumar Mishra R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - Manoj Kumar Mishra S/o Kamal Kumar Mishra Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Pacheda, P.H. No. 140, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Ramkumar Mishra R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Village Urla, Post Abhanpur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 11 - Chaitram S/o Gadariya Satnami R/o Village Urla, Post Abhanpur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/defendant No.5 : Mr. Rakshit Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.01.2025 Heard. 3 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “a. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P/4) so far as it rejects application of petitioner for adducing evidence and giving adjournment on the ground of calamity in the house of counsel for petitioner, therefore one opportunity be given to the petitioner for adducing evidence. b. Cost of the petition be awarded and, c. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 instituted a Civil Suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit property. During the pendency of the civil suit, the petitioner/defendant No.5 moved an application under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and the same was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 28.11.2024. Against the impugned order dated 28.11.2024, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.5. 3. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No. 5 would submit that defendant No. 5 submitted his examination-in-chief on 14.11.2024 by way of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. He would further submit that an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC was moved and the same was allowed by the Court below. He would contend that the petitioner moved an application seeking adjournment but the same was rejected and his right to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 28.11.2024. He would -4- further contend that the learned Court below committed an error of law in closing the right of the petitioner to lead evidence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the learned Trial Court closed the right of the petitioner/defendant No.5 to lead evidence only on the ground that he could not appear before the Court below at sharp 11:00 a.m. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Court appears to be erroneous, therefore, the order dated 28.11.2024 is hereby set aside and the same is allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. 6. The objection raised by the Registry is hereby ignored. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. 8. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha