1 2025:CGHC:7186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 135 of 2025  Smt. Leenashree Tiwari W/o Shri Sitakant Tiwari Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Khaira, P.O. Pandhi, Thana Seepath, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Dinesh S/o Late Shri Harchand Aged About 45 Years Caste Adholiya, R/o Village Pandhi, Tahsil Seepath, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- (Plaintiff) 2. Bharatpuri Goswami, S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dhuri, Aged About 64 Years Caste Goswami, R/o Village, Thana Seepath, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- (Defendant No. 2) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10. 02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 04.01.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 97A/2023, by 4th Additional Judge to First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over survey No. 252/3 admeasuring 0.364 hectare, situated at Village Pandhi Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur on the ground that it was purchased by him from 2 one Rameshwar Puri Goswami through a registered sale-deed on 11.02.1992. The plaintiff examined his witnesses, but defendant No. 1 refused to cross-examine those witnesses. In the application moved under section 151 of CPC, it is pleaded that before the examination of the plaintiff witnesses, an agreement was executed by respondent No. 2 and parties were exploring possibilities of settlement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as there was a possibility of settlement between the parties; the petitioner/defendant No. 1 refused to cross-examine the witnesses. He would further submit that as no compromise could be arrived into between the parties; the petitioner moved an application to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. He would also submit that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting such an application. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 5. Heard. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner himself refused to cross-examine the witnesses knowing very well the facts of the case. When the plaintiff led evidence, defendant No. 1 ought to have cross-examined those witnesses and if he failed to cross-examine those witnesses, he cannot be permitted to cross- examine those witnesses at a later stage. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant