1 2026:CGHC:20293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 321 of 2026 1 - Saurabh Agrawal S/o Saras Kumar Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 21, Street No. 2, Ward No. 18, Jawahar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mahendra Pratap Manikpuri S/o R.D. Manikpuri Aged About 38 Years R/o Matiya Road, Dongargaon Tahsil- Dongargaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Shantanu Vaishnav S/o Devnarayan Vaishnav Aged About 31 Years R/o Teachers Colony, Dongargaon, Tahsil- Dongargaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Office-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Richa Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 2 30/04/2026 Heard. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, FTC, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2023, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking adjournment was rejected and his right to cross- examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses was forfeited. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was, on earlier occasions, adjourned both at the instance of the petitioner as well as the respondents for one reason or the other. It is contended that on 16.12.2025, an application for adjournment was filed on the ground that the counsel appearing for the defendant was engaged in another matter before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. It is urged that instead of rejecting the application outright, the learned trial Court ought to have granted adjournment subject to imposition of reasonable costs. 4. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction and possession of the suit property and the petitioner has been diligently contesting the matter. Though on certain occasions the cross-examination could not be conducted, the petitioner seeks one effective opportunity and undertakes to proceed without seeking further adjournment, even if 3 costs are imposed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. From the order-sheets placed on record, it transpires that on 16.04.2025, when the matter was fixed for recording of plaintiffs’ evidence, the case was adjourned on the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 26.06.2025, 22.08.2025 and 17.09.2025 also, the proceedings were adjourned on applications preferred by the petitioner. On 17.09.2025, the petitioner/defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte and the matter was fixed for final arguments. 7. Subsequently, on 14.10.2025, the petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, which was allowed on 19.11.2025, and the ex-parte proceedings were set aside. The case was thereafter fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. Again, on 02.12.2025, the proceedings were adjourned on the application of the petitioner and the matter was fixed for 16.12.2025. On the said date, once again, an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner, which came to be rejected, resulting in forfeiture of his right to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses. 8. It further transpires that thereafter the matter was fixed for recording of the defendant’s evidence. The petitioner filed his affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC on 28.02.2026, however, he has not made himself available for cross-examination by the plaintiffs. The present petition has been filed on 10.03.2026. 4 9. The record, thus, clearly reflects that the petitioner has been negligent and has repeatedly sought adjournments, thereby delaying the proceedings. The manner in which adjournments were sought does not inspire confidence and indicates lack of bona fides. 10. However, it is equally trite that the right of cross-examination is a valuable right and constitutes an essential component of fair trial. Denial of such opportunity may cause serious prejudice, particularly in a suit for specific performance, permanent injunction and possession, where adjudication rests heavily on appreciation of oral evidence. 11. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting his case, yet one last opportunity deserves to be granted to him to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses, subject to stringent conditions. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 is set aside. The petitioner/defendant No.1 is granted one final opportunity to cross- examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. 13. The learned trial Court shall fix a specific date for cross- examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses and ensure that the same is concluded on the date so fixed. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner. In case of default, the right of the petitioner to cross-examine shall stand forfeited automatically without any further reference to this Court. Thereafter the 5 learned trial court may proceed further with the trial of the case, in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.05 11:01:41 +0530