1 2025:CGHC:8255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 160 of 2025 1. Haasan Chand Pal S/o Neelkanth Pal Aged About 63 Years R/o Ashok Provision Stores, Jeevan Beema Marg, Bus Stand Pandari, In Front Of Lig Forest Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1) 2. Smt. Annapurna Pal W/o Haasan Chand Pal Aged About 60 Years R/o Ashok Provision Stores, Jeevan Beema Marg, Bus Stand Pandari, In Front Of Lig Forest Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.2) 3. Nitin Pal S/o Haasan Chand Pal Aged About 43 Years R/o Ashok Provision Stores, Jeevan Beema Marg, Bus Stand Pandari, In Front Of Lig Forest Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.3) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Suresh Kumar Peshwani S/o Laxman Das Peshwani Aged About 54 Years R/o Avni Vihar, Daldal Shivani, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2. Smt. Savitri Tawre W/o Late Gyanchand Tawre Aged About 86 Years Through The Power Of Attorney Holder Bhushan Tawre, S/o Late Gyanchand Tawre, R/o H No.15/774, Jora Para, Near Bhakt Prahlad Dhaam, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.4) 3. Bhushan Tawre S/o Late Gyanchand Tawre Aged About 66 Years R/o H No.15/774 Jora Para, Near Bhakt Prahlad Dhaam, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 18/02/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioners have sought following relief(s):- A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue calling the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner AJINKYA PANSARE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.18 13:40:55 +0530 2 from the court below concerned for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue setting the aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P- 1) and in effect allow the application under section 151 of the petitioners (Annexure P-8) seeking to cross examine the plaintiff on its new statement given under order 18 rule 4 of the CPC in facts and circumstance of the case. C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. D. Cost of the petition may also be awarded. 2) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners/ defendants No. 1 to 3 submits that learned trial Court has rejected the application moved by defendants No. 1 to 3 under Section 151 of CPC whereby prayer made to cross-examine plaintiff and its witnesses on account of filing of fresh affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. He contends that learned trial Court rejected the application on two counts, which are:- (1) In WP227/276/2024, defendants No. 4 and 5 were permitted to cross- examined plaintiff and its witnesses and (2) earlier on three occasions, applications moved by petitioners/ defendants No. 1 to 3 were rejected. Thus, he prays to quash the impugned order dated 17.01.2025. 3) Heard. 4) Evidently, plaintiff has filed fresh affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC on 24.08.2024 and learned trial Court has permitted defendants No. 4 and 5 to cross-examine plaintiff and its witnesses but application moved by defendants No. 1 to 3 has been rejected on the ground that there was no direction with regard to defendants No. 1 to 3 in the order dated 09.04.2024 passed in WP227/276/2024. 5) The reasons assigned by trial Court appears to be erroneous as the 3 order was passed on 09.04.2024 in WP227/276/2024 whereas plaintiff has filed his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC subsequently on 24.08.2024. Further, the Court below is permitting defendants No. 4 and 5 to cross-examine plaintiff and its witnesses and at the same time, defendants No. 1 to 3 are being denied their right to cross-examine plaintiff and its witnesses. 6) As informed by Mr. Thakur, case is fixed for examination of plaintiff and is its witnesses for tomorrow, the order in this regard passed by trial Court is hereby set-aside and it is directed that learned trial Court shall permit defendants No. 1 to 3 to cross-examine plaintiff and its witnesses, if any. 7) It is made clear that petitioners shall not be permitted more than one opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff and its witnesses as the civil suit remains pending since 2013. 8) Accordingly, instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya