-1- 2025:CGHC:20168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 417 of 2025 Deenbandhu @ Hardev Prasad Mishra S/o Ramkumar Mishra Aged About 62 Years R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir,, Village - Urla, Post - Abhanpur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgah, (Defendant No. 4) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Manish Mishra S/o Late Krishna Kumar Mishra R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur City, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Plaintiff No. 1) 2 - Smt. Manjulata Mishra W/o Late Krishna Kumar Mishra R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur City, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Plaintiff No. 2) 3 - Ku. Ritu Mishra D/o Late Krishna Kumar Mishra R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur City, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Plaintiff No. 3) 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, (Defendant No. 1) 5 - Kamal Kumar Mishra (Dead) Through Lrs., (Defendant No. 3) 5.1 - Smt. Neetu Devi Mishra D/o Late Kamal Kumar Mishra R/o Village - Pacheda, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 3a) 5.2 - Ku. Rashmi Mishra D/o Late Kamal Kumar R/o Village - Pacheda, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 3b) 5.3 - Bhagwati Tripathi D/o Rasiyat Prasad Tripathi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Tatikasa, Tahsil And District - Kawardha, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 3c) -2- 5.4 - 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, (Defendant No. 3d) 6 - 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, (Defendant No. 5) 7 - Pramod Kumar Mishra S/o Ramkumar Mishra R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Village- Urla, Post - Abhanpur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 6) 8 - Dilip Kumar Mishra (Dead) Through Lrs, (Defendant No. 7) 8.1 - Smt. Urmila Devi Mishra W/o Kamal Kumar Mishra R/o Village - Pacheda, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 7a) 8.2 - Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra Wd/o Dilip Kumar Mishra R/o Village - Pacheda, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 7b) 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, (Defendant No. 8) 10 - Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Ramkumar Mishra R/o In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Village- Urla, Post - Abhanpur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 9) 11 - Chaitram S/o Gadariya Satnami R/o Village- Urla, Post - Abhanpur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendant No. 10) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.05.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- -3- “10.1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure.P/1), passed by 7th Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), passed in Civil Suit no. 73A/2013, in the matter of Manish Mishra and others vs Ram Mishra and others, in the interest of justice. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2) The petitioner/defendant, by way of this writ petition, is challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the 7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 73A/2013, titled Manish Mishra and others vs. Ram Mishra and others. By the said order, the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by Defendant No. 4/petitioner along with Defendants No. 1, 5, and 9 on 23.11.2024 was allowed. However, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, filed by the Defendants No. 5 and 9 for adjournment, was rejected, and their right to lead evidence was closed vide the impugned order dated 28.11.2024. The said order is impugned herein as being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. A copy of the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 along with the order sheets is annexed as Annexure P/1. 3) Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that on 25.11.2024, the learned Trial Court directed the defendants to remain present before the Court precisely at 11:00 a.m. to lead their evidence, failing which appropriate action would be taken. He submits that such a direction is perverse and unduly harsh, and the Trial Court ought to have exercised judicial discretion more judiciously, particularly to prevent miscarriage of justice. He further contends that -4- the learned Trial Court has committed an error of law in closing the petitioner’s right to lead evidence on such a narrow and technical ground. 4) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that the right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed solely on the ground of his failure to appear at 11:00 a.m. sharp as directed, the order passed by the learned Trial Court appears to be unduly rigid and not in consonance with the settled principles of procedural fairness. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 is hereby set aside. However, in the interest of justice, the said relief is granted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-payable to the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court is directed to grant one further opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. 6) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM