2026:CGHC:23067 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 591 of 2026 Ramlal Verma @ Jogi Ram Verma S/o. Late Lahar Ram Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village- Bhaisa Tehsil- Arang, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bisahat Verma @ Koda Verma S/o. Late Jodhiya Verma Aged About 68 Years R/o. Bazar Chowk, Village- Bhaisa, Police Station- Kharora Tehsil- Arang, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Bisoha Verma @ Pusu Verma (Deceased) (Through Legal Heirs): 2.1 - Smt. Malti Bai Verma W/o. Late Bisoha Verma @ Pusu Verma, Aged About 58 Years 2.2 - Ravishankar Verma S/o. Late Bisoha Verma @ Pusu Verma Aged About 24 Years 2.3 - Dilip Kumar Verma S/o. Late Bisoha Verma @ Pusu Verma, Aged About 21 Years Address of all above Legal Heirs- Bazar Chowk, Village- Bhaisa, Police Station Kharora, Tehsil- Arang- Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Vishvanath Verma @ Chhagan S/o. Late Jodhiya Verma Aged About 58 Years R/o. Bazar Chowk, Village- Bhaisa, Police Station Kharora, Tehsil- Arang- Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Anshul Singhania, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. Heard. Wp227 591 of 2026 2 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.04.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr Division, Arang, District-Raipur, in Civil Suit No.209-A/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for taking documents on record and permitting him for re-examination for the purposes of exhibiting the documents, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner herein is a plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He was prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the defendants before the learned trial Court with respect to the suit property of the land Khasra No.287 area 5.48 hectare, out of which a shop is constructed on 375 sft. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that on the western side of the construction, a lane was also constructed for access to his house. The defendants were allotted their houses under the scheme of Indira Awas Yojna, adjoining to the house of the plaintiff, and they extended construction of the said houses and stopped the access way of the plaintiff. The plaintiff made an application under Section 133 of the CrPC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raipur on 29.03.2012, which was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff is having Civil Remedy before the appropriate Court, and thus he filed the Civil Suit. Learned counsel would also submit that in the Civil Suit, the plaintiff has been examined and cross-examined. However, the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence and at this stage, plaintiff has filed certain documents which could not be filed by him earlier, as the same could not Wp227 591 of 2026 3 be procured because of the reason that they were missing in between other files. He made an application on 29.03.2026 for his re-examination for exhibiting those documents, which have been filed by him along with the application. He would further submit that the learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground of delay. However, the defendants’ evidence has not been started yet and the documents filed by the plaintiff are very relevant for just decision of the case. Depriving the plaintiff from filing of said documents and exhibiting them during evidence would amount to deprive to put up his case properly and no prejudice would be caused to defendants, as they are having their right to cross-examine the plaintiff. It would not amount to fulfill the lacuna and therefore, the plaintiff may be permitted to re-examine himself for exhibiting the documents filed by him by allowing the documents to be taken on record. He would further submit that the learned trial court has mechanically rejected the application on the ground of delay and also that the entire case will be reopened. However, the plaintiff would be restrained from only to the extent of exhibiting those documents, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The plaintiff could not dispute that in the Civil suit he has been examined and his evidence has been closed and thereafter case was fixed for recording of defendants’ evidence. From the order sheets dated Wp227 591 of 2026 4 29.09.2025 to 07.04.2026 filed by the petitioner (Annexure P4), it transpires that the case was fixed for cross-examination of the defendants’, however, on the application made by the plaintiff, the case was adjourned. Thereafter, for one or the other reason, the case was repeatedly adjourned from time to time. However, on 23.01.2026 the plaintiff filed application for his re-examination for the purposes of exhibiting the documents filed by him. On that day, he filed certain documents along with the list of documents which has been in the present writ petition also along with the covering memo dated 11.05.2026. These are the documents relating to the certificate issued by the Upsarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhaisa, various receipts of payment of taxes to the Gram Panchayat, birth certificate of Kum.Riteshwari Verma, voter ID cards, copies of ration cards and electricity bills. In the application, the plaintiff averred that the documents were misplaced in between the other files and therefore, they could not be filed earlier and could not be exhibited during the evidence and now he has filed those documents which are relevant for just decision of the case. 6. From perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff, it transpires that the said documents relate to the earlier date, much prior to the date of his examination, or during pendency of the suit. The reason assigned by the plaintiff that these documents were misplaced in between other files, not appears to be plausible explanation, for the reason that when the said documents were recovered from the other files, has not been disclosed Wp227 591 of 2026 5 by the plaintiff in his application. It is relevant here to notice that the examination of the plaintiff has already been completed and the case was fixed for cross-examination of the defendants’ evidence. When specific query has been raised from the learned counsel of the plaintiff / petitioner as to when the plaintiff’s examination was completed, he would not give any explanation about the date on which the plaintiff’s examination was completed. From the order sheets dated 29.09.2025, 10.10.2025, 06.11.2025, 20.11.2025, 16.12.2025 and 08.01.2026, the case was fixed for recording of the defendants’ evidence and thereafter, the plaintiff has filed application for re-examination to get the documents exhibited. When the documents were available to the plaintiff, though as per his submission that those documents have been misplaced in between other files, non-filing of the said documents on the earlier occasion, before his examination is concluded, has not been explained properly by the plaintiff and it is only when the case has been fixed for defendants’ evidence, plaintiff had filed those documents as well as the application for taking those documents on record. The plaintiff has also not filed his evidence in the present writ petition as to what are the documents he got exhibited during his evidence and at the time of his cross-examination, so that it can be determined as to whether allowing the application amounts to fulfill the lacuna or not. 7. Learned trail court has observed that from the record it transpires that sufficient opportunity has been provided to the plaintiff, however, he could not file the documents within time and has not get those documents Wp227 591 of 2026 6 exhibited. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that the suit is pending since 2016 and the application has been filed by the plaintiff on 23.01.2026, which is almost after about 10 years and the application is not bona fide but to fulfill the lacuna which comes in his evidence. Permitting the plaintiff to re-examine himself to get the documents exhibited amounts to reopening the entire case and to fulfill the lacuna. The plaintiff / petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference of this court and to allow the said application. 8. Though the plaintiff is having right to file document and under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC, the documents filed by the plaintiff can be taken on record, if the plaintiff satisfy the court by giving plausible explanation for not filing the same on the earlier occasion, however, in the present case, the plaintiff has failed to give any plausible explanation for not filing the said documents on the earlier occasion. 9. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in cases of Sugandhi (Dead) Vs P.Rajkumar Rep. By Power Agent Imamoli, AIR online 2020 SC 807 and Pradeep Bailey Vs Gilma Daniel, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 18.06.2025 in CM(M) 1506/2023 & CM Appl. 47944/2023, are factually different from the present case and therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner by the said judgments. Wp227 591 of 2026 7 10. In view of above, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff . 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.30 16:16:37 +0530