1 2025:CGHC:54287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 803 of 2025 Manoj Kumar S/o Santram Banjare, aged about 46 years R/o Village Rahod, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Through Next Friend Santram Banjare, S/o Late Cherka Prasad Banjare, aged 78 Years, R/o Village- Rahod, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Name Of The Petitioner Wrongly Mentioned Court Below). ... Petitioner versus 1. Gayaram S/o Late Chhatram Yadav (Died) Through Legal Representative 1(b) Mamta Yadav, D/o Late Gayaram Yadav, aged about 28 years 1(c) Prashant Yadav, S/o Late Gayaram Yadav, aged about 24 years 2. Smt. Usha Devi, Wd/o. Late Gayaram Satnami, aged about 53 years All R/o Village Rahod, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1(b), 1(c) and 2 : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Shri Abhishek K Singh, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board dated 06/11/2025 Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Additional Judge, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa from the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2019, 2 by which the right of the petitioner to examine the witness (psychiatrist) namely Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla through Video Conferencing has been closed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of sale deeds dated 22.10.2003, 14.07.2005 and 07.03.2006 executed by him as null and void, and also for possession from the respondents. He submits that predominantly the suit was filed on the ground that when the aforesaid sale deeds were executed, the petitioner was under the treatment of a Psychiatrist and was not in a position to understand the purport thereof. He further submits that in order to prove the said fact, it was necessary to examine the Psychiatrist under whom the petitioner was taking treatment at the time of execution of the sale deeds. He submits that initially learned trial Court vide order dated 24.06.2025 allowed the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to examine the above-named Psychiatrist through Video Conferencing, and Nayab Nazir of the concerned Civil Court was also directed to ensure the presence of said witness in the District Court, Raipur. The matter was then posted for 17.07.2025 for defendants’ evidence. He submits that in order to prove the pleadings, examination of Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla is essential otherwise it would be difficult for the petitioner to do so. He submits that non-appearance of the witness was not within the control of the petitioner, and therefore in all fairness learned trial Court should have granted one more opportunity to ensure the examination of the said witness, and being so the order impugned may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order impugned and submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to make sure that the witness was examined on the date fixed by the Court, and that as he did not do that on the date fixed for that i.e. on 24.06.2025, the trial Court closed his right to do so, and posted the matter for the evidence of the defendants on 17.07.2025. It is thus submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. Be that as it may, having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should have been given one more opportunity to examine the witness namely Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla to prove the pleadings taken by him. It is apparent from the order dated 24.06.2025 that the trial Court itself permitted the petitioner to examine the witness namely Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla through VC, and if the witness did not remain present, the petitioner cannot be put to peril. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. 5. It is expected that the trial Court shall adhere to the order dated 24.06.2025 and examine the witness Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla through Video Conferencing. The petition thus stands allowed. Consequently, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.11.07 13:46:40 +0530