1 2025:CGHC:5957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 102 of 2025 1. Gangaram S/o Late Shri Kuldeep Aged About 43 Years Caste - Rajwar, Agriculturist By Occupation And Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Munnaram S/o Late Shri Kuldeep Aged About 40 Years Caste - Rajwar, Agriculturist By Occupation And Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 3. Shiv Prasad S/o Late Shri Kuldeep Aged About 38 Years Caste - Rajwar, Agriculturist By Occupation And Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Amar Say S/o Shri Hiraman Aged About 60 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupied By Agriculturist Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Chamru S/o. Shri Hiraman Aged About 55 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupied By Agriculturist Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 3. Neel Kumar S/o. Ramdhani Aged About 50 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupied By Agriculturist Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 4. Dawel S/o Shri Amar Say Aged About 40 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupied By Agriculturist Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 5. Bodhan S/o. Shri Ramdhani Aged About 35 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupied By Agriculturist Are R/o. Village - Dwarika Nagar, Sub Tahsil - Latori, Police Station - Jai Nagar, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 6. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate 2 For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Order on Board 03/02/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction(s), by quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) to an extent of rejecting the part of application filed under order 17 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and further granting one last opportunity to the plaintiffs to adduce the examination of plaintiff’s witnesses. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the matter was set for plaintiffs’ evidence on 21.11.2024 and an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC was moved on account of medical urgency, but the application was rejected and right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence was closed on the ground that on earlier three occasions time was granted to the plaintiffs to lead evidence. He would further submit that the learned trial Court should have granted one more opportunity after imposing certain cost. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 3 4. Taking into consideration the fact that on earlier dates, the plaintiffs or their counsel appeared before the learned Court below and took adjournment but on 21.11.2024 adjournment was sought due to medical urgency and in my opinion sufficient reason was assigned but the learned trial Court rejected the application and closed the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence. 5. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Deepak Vs. Ramesh 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 21.11.2024 passed in C.S. No. 107-A/2023 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 5. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 4 9. The learned trial Court is directed to provide only one opportunity and if the plaintiffs fail to lead evidence, their right shall be closed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant