1 2026:CGHC:23364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 600 of 2026 Ratan Jain S/o Late Pukhraj Ji Oswal Aged About 68 Years R/o Gandhi Ward Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli Current Address Raipur (C.G.)-(Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sandeep Kotadiya S/ojethmal Kotadiya (Jain) Aged About 45 Years R/o Gandhi Ward Mungeli, District Mungeli, (C.G.)-(Defendant No. 1) 2 - Sheetal Jain D/ojethmal Kotadiya (Jain) Aged About 48 Years R/o Gandhi Ward Mungeli, District Mungeli, (C.G.)-(Defendant No. 2) 3 - State Of C.G. Through District Collector, District Mungeli (C.G.)- (Defendant No.3) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Gupta, Advocate alongwith Mr. Kishan Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.05.21 09:56:05 +0530 2 15/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by learned First District Judge, Mungeli in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected and his right to lead evidence has been forfeited. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, he is prosecuting a suit against the defendant for partition and separate possession of the suit property. After framing of the issues, the suit was posted for recording plaintiff’s evidence, however, on 05.05.2026 also, when the suit was posted for recording the plaintiff’s evidence, an application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC for adjournment of the proceeding on the ground that his counsel is having some personal difficulties as well as the plaintiff himself is suffering from ailment, and therefore, the proceeding of the case may be adjourned, the said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial Court and his right to lead evidence has been forfeited. He would further submit that though on the earlier occasions, the plaintiff sought adjournment and the adjournment was granted by imposing cost upon him and he has duly paid the cost imposed upon him, however, the reasons for seeking adjournment on that particular day is the relevant consideration for adjournment of the proceeding. The plaintiff is an old aged person fully dependent upon his counsel and when his counsel 3 was having personal difficulty and due to his ailment also he could not appeared for recording of his evidence. He is prosecuting a suit for partition of his property and in absence of any evidence, his right would be prejudiced adversely. The defendant’s evidence has not been started yet and the case has been fixed on 27.06.2026 for recording of the defendants’ evidence, therefore, the plaintiff may be permitted to examine himself by setting aside the order impugned. He would also submit that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the permission has been granted as the defendant is having every right to cross-examine the plaintiff, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the order impugned, it transpires that the petitioner had earlier taken adjournment on 07.03.2025, 11.04.2025, 10.12.2025, 16.01.2026, 18.02.2026 and 19.03.2026, however, on 05.05.2026 when he again made an application for adjournment of the proceeding, the application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC filed by him has been rejected and his right to lead evidence has been forfeited. 6. Though, the plaintiff was provided sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence but considering the grounds for adjournment sought for, the learned trial Court allowed their application and granted time to lead their evidence and subsequently, on 05.05.2025, his application was rejected. 7. Be that as it may, since the defendants evidence has not been started 4 yet and the plaintiff is willing to examine himself and also that he made his application on 05.05.2026 for adjournment of the proceeding which has been rejected by the learned trial Court, it can not be said that the plaintiff was negligent in prosecuting his suit and it is one of the ground that his counsel was having some personal difficulty and he is dependent upon his counsel. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the one opportunity should be granted to the plaintiff to examine himself before the learned trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 is set aside. 9. Learned trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff to examine himself and his witnesses before the learned trial Court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- which is payable to the defendant before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court shall fix a date for evidence of the plaintiff and shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to him, the defendant is having right to cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit