-1- 2025:CGHC:16823 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 82 of 2025 Ramin Bai @ Bhuribai, aged about 50 years, w/o Late Shyamlal, D/o. Bhukhau, Caste Suryawanshi, Occupation House Wife, R/o. Village Nagoi (Baima), Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Kejabai, W/o. Late Chhedilal, aged about 70 years, 3. Santoshi Bai, d/o. Late Chhedilal, aged about 30 years, Respondents No. 2 & 3 resident of ward No. 9, 10, PS and Tehsil Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sagar Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the record relating to petitioner. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 10.2 That, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 18.10.2024 and additionally, the opportunity to present remaining plaintiff evidence should be provided, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence has been closed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to lead evidence on nine occasions. He would further submit that on the last date of hearing, the plaintiff could not appear due to the unfortunate demise of his neighbour. He would contend that an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) was moved citing this reason, but the same was rejected. He prays that, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff may be granted one last opportunity to lead evidence, subject to any reasonable terms and conditions. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) The record would show that for the first time, the case was fixed for the -3- plaintiff’s evidence on 11.08.2023. The plaintiff sought adjournments on the following dates: 11.08.2023, 30.01.2024, 15.02.2024, 11.03.2024, 04.04.2024, 02.05.2024, 12.06.2024, 05.09.2024, and 26.09.2024. On each occasion, the adjournment was sought on different grounds, including bereavement and engagement of counsel in other courts. Similarly, on the last occasion, the adjournment was again sought citing the death of a neighbour of PW-2; however, no documentary proof was placed in support of the contention. In view of the repeated adjournments, the trial Court, relying on the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, declined to grant further time and closed the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence. 6) However, it is a settled principle of law that procedural laws are meant to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gayathri v. M. Girish (2016) 15 SCC 142 held that though Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC places a restriction on the number of adjournments, the Court can, in the interest of justice, exercise discretion and grant further opportunity with appropriate costs. 7) Similarly, in the matter of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court has inherent power to allow parties to produce evidence or reopen their case in the interest of justice, even after the stage of evidence is over, if it is necessary for determining the real question in controversy. 8) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the -4- principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one last opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence, subject to the imposition of the cost. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The application moved under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC is allowed. 9) The plaintiff is granted one last opportunity to lead evidence, subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 3,000.00 payable to defendants No. 1 and 2, to be paid on or before the next date of hearing before the learned Court below. 10) It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted in the matter if the petitioner fails to lead evidence on the date given by the learned Trial Court. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM