1 2026:CGHC:22709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 251 of 2026 1 - Smt. Kaliya Bai Yadav W/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav Aged About 76 Years R/o Village Samoda, Block Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dayalu Ram Yadav S/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Samoda, Block Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shiyalu Ram Yadav S/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Samoda, Block Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Laluram Yadav S/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Samoda, Block Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Radheshyam Yadav S/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Samoda, Block Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Lata Bai W/o Sant Kumar Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Parsada, Near Stadium, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Neelkanth Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Rajkatthi (Jamgaon) Fingeshwar, Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sukaro Bai Dewangan W/o Shri Manharan Dewangan R/o Village Samoda, Revenue Circle Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.05.14 11:27:19 +0530 2 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hirashig Bhoshle, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Arang, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 156-A/2018 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to exhibit the documents filed by him has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court and the case is at the plaintiff’s evidence stage before the trial Court. On 14.10.2025, the documents filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was allowed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/-, thereafter, another application for re-examination of the plaintiff was also allowed vide order dated 12.08.2025 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- and the plaintiff was permitted to get the document exhibited in evidence, thereafter, the plaintiff examined P.W.-5 Kaliya Yadav and P.W.-6 Shyam Lal Dhruv on 03.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 respectively, 3 thereafter, he filed another application on 02.12.2025 for exhibiting the remaining documents in the evidence, the said application filed by the plaintiff has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that sufficient opportunity was already provided to the plaintiff to exhibit the documents which has been relied by him in accordance with law, however, he availed his entire opportunity and the case is pending since 2018, therefore, he can not be again permitted to get the document exhibited, and therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff has been rejected. He would further submit that the documents which the plaintiff is relied upon in support of his case is the vital documents and necessary to be exhibited during the evidence. He would also submit that the defendants witness have not been started yet. He would further submit that the defendant has not prejudiced and have the every right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness about the said document, therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner may be permitted to get the document exhibited during the evidence and for this limited purpose the present petition has been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the order sheet dated 09.01.2026, it transpires that the application of the plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that sufficient opportunity has been provided to him for recording his evidence and to get the document exhibited. It has also been transpired that on 03.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 have been examined, and thereafter, on 02.12.2025 itself, the plaintiff has filed an application for exhibiting the other documents which has been 4 rejected by the learned trial Court. It is also reflected from the copy of the plaint annexed as Annexure – P/2 that a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. When the documents have been taken on record and it is very much available, and the plaintiff sought permission to get those documents exhibited in evidence, he may be permitted to get the document exhibited and the defendant’s have every right to cross- examine the witness and the issue. Merely some delay has been occurred, the plaintiff can not be deprived from exhibiting those documents which has been filed by him in support of his case, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff may be granted one more opportunity to get the document exhibited in the evidence and the defendants are at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff on the said documents. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 be set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- which is payable to the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff to get the document exhibited which has already been filed before it on the earlier occasion subject to its admissibility and evidentiary value in accordance with law. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiff for recording of his evidence. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit