1 2025:CGHC:45350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 152 of 2025 Saraswati Bai Wd/o Hemu Dhiwar, D/o Late Bharosha Dimar, Age About 45 Years R/o Sadar South Ward, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Lochan S/o Late Ramgulal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near House Of Pandirao Kridatm Maratha Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Triloki D/o Late Ramgulal Aged About 25 Years R/o Near House Of Pandirao Kridatm Maratha Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Godawari D/o Late Ramgulal Aged About 45 Years R/o Near House Of Pandirao Kridatm Maratha Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gauri Bai D/o Late Ramgulal Aged About 42 Years R/o Near House Of Pandirao Kridatm Maratha Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Khori Bai Wd/o Late Ramgulal Aged About 42 Years R/o Near House Of Pandirao Kridatm Maratha Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, 2 Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sukhwati Bai W/o Shobharam Aged About 65 Years R/o Sadar South Ward, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Near House Of Pandirao Kridatm Maratha Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sonabai Wd/o Late Ramgulal Aged About 55 Years R/o Sadar South Ward, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Near House Of Pandirao Kridatm Maratha Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and the impugned order dated 16/12/24 (Annexure P-5) and kindly permit the plaintiff to lead evidence in support of her case in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the court below, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3) This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support is filed herewith.” 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction inter alia on the ground that she is residing on the subject 3 house for the last 20-25 years and thus, she perfected her right by way of adverse possession. He would contend that defendants filed their written statement and the learned trial Court framed issues and plaintiff filed her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC on 25.09.2024. He would submit that the petitioner was granted 03 opportunities to remain present for cross-examination, but on account of medical urgency, she could not appear before the learned Court below, therefore, the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2024, closed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence. He would submit that an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC was moved and same was rejected. He would pray that one opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to lead evidence. 3. Heard Mr. Koshta at length and perused the documents placed on file. 4. In the matter of Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (dead) by LRS1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 4 held as under:- “4. In our view, end of justice requires that the Appellant be given one more opportunity of leading evidence. Accordingly the order closing the evidence of the Appellant is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the Appellant to lead his evidence.” 5. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Deepak Vs. Ramesh Sethi 2 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.” 1(2001) 9 SCC 117 2. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381 4 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 petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence. 7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, 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 order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The application moved under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC is allowed. 8. The plaintiff is granted one last opportunity to lead evidence, subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 2100.00 payable to defendants on or before the next date of hearing. 9. 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