1 2025:CGHC:5134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 94 of 2025 1. Gopal S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 36 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Babulal S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 34 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Bhuri Bai @ Amriteshwar D/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 29 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Chhote Noni @ Ambika Bai D/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 31 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Ram Prasad S/o Late Munu Aged About 56 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Makardhwaj S/o Late Nandu Aged About 56 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Chakradhar (Died) Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 8. Chirounjimati D/o Late Nandu Aged About 51 Years Cast - Kewat, R/o - Village Kacchar, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 9. Bolo Bai D/o Late Nandu Aged About 66 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Tarachand (Died) Caste - Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Devendra S/o Late Shobhnath Aged About 27 Years Caste - Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Devna Bai W/o Late Shobhnath Aged About 71 Years Caste - Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Pinki Bai D/o Late Shobhnath Aged About 31 Years Caste - Kewat, R/o - Village Kachhar, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Raigarh, District Office, Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.01.31 11:14:03 +0530 2 29/01/2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to eight Khasra Nos. total ad-measuring 2.089 hectares situated at Village- Kachhar, P.H. No. 4, Tehsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). She further submits that on 08.10.2024, the case was set for the plaintiffs’ evidence and an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC was moved by the counsel on the ground that the original counsel was not keeping well. She contends that a proxy counsel appeared before the trial Court but the application was rejected and the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence was closed. She further contends that prior to 18.10.2024, the plaintiffs never took adjournment. She argues that the plaintiffs assigned sufficient and genuine reasons before the learned Court below, which ought to have allowed one adjournment after imposing some cost. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as the case was set for the plaintiffs’ evidence on 18.10.2024 and the application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC was moved, therefore, the learned trial Court justly closed the plaintiffs’ right to lead evidence. 3) Heard. 4) Taking into consideration the fact that on earlier dates, the plaintiffs or their counsel appeared before the Court below and never took adjournment but on 08.10.2024, an adjournment was sought on account of the ill health of their original counsel and sufficient reason was also assigned but the learned trial Court in a haste, rejected the application and closed the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence. 5) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Deepak Vs. Ramesh 3 Sethi, 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381 has held as under: "13. The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. No doubt, where a party is unconscionably indolent, the Court may put its foot down and close the right of the party to lead evidence; else, as adversarial litigations are meant to be tried after allowing the parties to an adequate opportunity to place their respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.” 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 petitioners/plaintiffs to lead evidence. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in C.S. No. 19-A/2019 is quashed and the application moved under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC is hereby allowed. Learned trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead evidence, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to defendants No. 1 to 4. 8) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya