1 2026:CGHC:14151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 347 of 2026 1 - Karan Singh Rajpal S/o Gurmeet Singh Rajpal Aged About 40 Years R/o Lig 86 Extension, Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar, Korba, District Korba (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Geeta Yadav W/o Yamuna Prasad Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Near Saurabh General Store, Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District- Raipur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.01.2026, passed by the learned 7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2024, whereby the right to cross-examine of the defendant to the plaintiff witness No.1 Geeta Yadav has been forfeited. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The suit is for the declaration of the title and possession filed by the plaintiff with respect to the suit land Khasra No. 84/65, area 0.022 hectare (2400 sq. 2 ft.) situated at village Urkura, PH No. 108, Tahsil and District Raipur. During the proceedings of the civil suit, the case was fixed for cross- examination of the plaintiff, Geeta Yadav, on 30.01.2026. Since the counsel representing the defendant had not appeared for her cross- examination and despite repeated calls when he could not appear, the right to cross-examine the plaintiff, PW-1 Geeta Yadav, has been forfeited, and the case was fixed for the recording of the plaintiff's other witnesses. The order dated 30.01.2026 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court. The defendant has duly and vigilantly prosecuted her case before the learned trial Court. Though at about 12:00 hours, counsel for the defendant could not appear when the matter called for cross-examination of the witness, and it was passed over; however, he appeared at 01:40 pm, and the examination in chief of the plaintiff was recorded. He asked to come at 04:00 pm, in the post-lunch session, as the time of the pre-lunch session is over. Due to unavoidable reason the counsel for the defendant could not appear at 04:30 pm, and when he appeared at 04:30 pm, he made a prayer for adjournment of the proceeding for any other day by filing an application on the ground that the defendant wants to engage another senior counsel. The applicant’s filing by the defendant was rejected his right to cross-examine the plaintiff was forfeited. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has considered the earlier adjournment sought by the defendant, whereas the earlier adjournments were on their own merits, and the reason for the adjournment sought on that particular day would be relevant, and 3 the right to cross-examine the evidence cannot be forfeited. The issued involves in the case pertains to the property right, and forfeiting the right of cross-examination of the plaintiff would cause prejudice to the defence of the defendant. Though the defendant had taken adjournment on an earlier occasion, instead of forfeiting his right to cross-examine the plaintiff, she would be compensated by imposing costs and should have adjourned the proceeding for any other day. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant may be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff, and the impugned order may be set aside. He would further submit that the defendant undertakes not to take any further unnecessary adjournment for cross- examination of the witness. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition and order- sheets of the learned trial Court. It transpires that on 03.11.2025, 05.12.2025, the proceedings were adjourned at the instance of the defendant for recording evidence of the plaintiff. On 08.10.2025, the proceedings were adjourned at the instance of the plaintiff. On 25.11.2025, 12.01.2026, the proceedings were adjourned, but it was not mentioned on whose instance it was adjourned. The order-sheets reflect that both parties were taken adjournments for one or another reason. On 30.01.2025, when the case was fixed for the recording of the plaintiff’s evidence, her examination in chief was started at 01:40 pm, and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant was asked to come at 04:00 in the post-lunch session. At 04:30 pm, he made an application for adjournment of the proceeding on the ground that the 4 defendant wants to change the counsel and engaged a senior counsel. When the examination in chief of the plaintiff was started at 01:40 pm, in the presence of the counsel of the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant is avoiding the cross-examination of the plaintiff and had an intention to cause delay in the proceeding. 6. The right of cross-examination is a valuable and substantive right forming part of the principles of natural justice, and ordinarily should not be denied on mere technicalities or isolated lapses. In the present case, it was observed that the defendant was diligently participating in the proceedings, and her counsel was present when the examination- in-chief of PW-1 commenced. The request for adjournment was made on bona fide grounds, i.e., to engage a senior counsel, and not with an intention to delay the proceedings. The trial Court, therefore, ought not to adopt a harsh approach by forfeiting the right of cross-examination, especially when such denial could seriously prejudice the defence in a suit involving property rights. This Court emphasized that instead of forfeiture, the appropriate course would have been to grant an adjournment subject to costs. The procedural laws should not be used to defeat substantive rights. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar” (2016) 8 SCC 762, emphasizing that denial of opportunity to cross-examine amounts to violation of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, this Court, by exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2026, restoring the defendant’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The learned trial Court is directed to fix a date for cross-examination of the plaintiff by 5 the defendant and to proceed with the further trial. It is made clear that while granting such relief, the balance between expeditious trial and fair opportunity must be maintained, and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted henceforth. The finding aligns with settled law that courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach while dealing with procedural defaults, and the procedural provisions should be interpreted to advance justice rather than to thwart it. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok