1 2025:CGHC:45777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 146 of 2024 1 - Dhan Singh S/o Chakra Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No. 6) 2 - Latel S/o Baharaha Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No. 7) 3 - Chandram S/o Mohan Lal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No. 8) 4 - Sukhdev S/o Guha Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No. 9) 5 - Dayal Das S/o Piranta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No. 16) 6 - Dayadin S/o Firanta Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No. 17) 7 - Tulsidas S/o Firanta Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No.18) 8 - Ghuruwa S/o Chintaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def. No.19) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ameer S/o Chandlal Tandon Aged About 56 Years R/o Deogaon, Village - Pataidih, Tahsil -Masturi, Taluka - Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) 2 - Purushottam S/o Mahavir Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.10 14:01:33 +0530 2 Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Def No. 1 To 5 To 10 To 15 To 20) 3 - Sunita D/o Mahavir Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rambai (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15- 01-2025 5 - Ganesh Ram S/o Mahadev Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ganeshiya D/o Mahadev Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Tajib Ahmed (Died And Deleted ) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15-01-2025 8 - Yunus Khan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15-01-2025 9 - Manohar (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15- 01-2025 10 - Atul S/o Rasik Lal Baniya Aged About 43 Years R/o Navrangpur, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Rasik Lal S/o Deshaee Baniya Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Mohan Mati D/o Khamhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Pataidih, Tahsil - Mastruri Taluka -Masturi, Dist - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Taluka, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 09-09-2025 1) Petitioners have filed this petition assailing the order passed by 3 learned First Additional Judge of First Civil Judge – Class-II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/73/2017 dated 30.10.2023 whereby application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1/ plaintiff filed civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to suit property mentioned in plaint; defendants filed written statement and learned trial Court framed issues. She further submits that plaintiff filed its affidavit under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and he was examined and cross-examined on 16.06.2023 and thereafter, he was discharged. She contends that on 16.10.2023, petitioners/ defendants moved application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC inter-alia on the ground that due to paucity of time, cross-examination of plaintiff was not completed on the said date but same is not reflected in the order-sheet. She further contends that evidence of plaintiff was not closed, therefore learned Trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioners/ defendants to complete cross-examination of plaintiff. She prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that plaintiff was examined and cross- examined which is evident from order-sheet dated 16.06.2023 and the said order-sheet was signed by the counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC as well as in this writ petition are baseless, therefore this petition 4 deserves to be dismissed. 4) Learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Perusal of the deposition of plaintiff and the order-sheet dated 16.06.2023 would reveal that plaintiff was examined and cross- examined by the respective advocates and evidence was closed at 4:40 p.m. In the order-sheet, it has been specifically observed by the Trial Court that “after examination and cross-examination, witness is discharged.” The order-sheet dated 16.06.2024 was signed by the advocates appearing for the respective parties, therefore allegations contained the application moved under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC could not be substantiated. 7) However, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner wants to cross-examine plaintiff furthermore, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to petitioners to cross-examine plaintiff, subject of payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing. 8) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a