1 2026:CGHC:25519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 515 of 2023 1 - M/s Shree Steels Through Its Partner And Authorized Signatory - Shri Anil Srivastava, Aged About 46 Years, S/o Shri H.C. Srivastava, R/o M.G. Road, Dada Badi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492110. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sew Infrastructure Ltd. Through Its Director / Authorized Signatory, Having Registered Address At 63871, Snehlata Building, Greenland Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad, 5000016 (A.P.) 2 - Shri S. Subba Reddy Senior Manager, Sew Infrastructure Ltd., Athena Power Project, Gram Sindhitarai, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 2 22/06/2026 Heard. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the learned Seventh Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 01-B/2019, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court rejected the petitioner's application under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently forfeited his right to adduce evidence. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the aforesaid civil suit instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,95,653/- from the defendants. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, whereafter issues were framed and the matter was posted for recording of the plaintiff's evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the matter was fixed on several occasions for recording of evidence, the progress of the suit was substantially impeded due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic during the years 2020 and 2021. Owing to the restrictions prevailing during the said period and the practical difficulties in securing the attendance of witnesses, the proceedings were adjourned from time to time. It is contended that such adjournments were granted in the peculiar circumstances prevailing across the country and the respondents never seriously objected to the continuation of the proceedings on that account. 3 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has throughout remained vigilant and interested in the prosecution of the suit. According to the petitioner, on 12.06.2023 the matter was adjourned and fixed for recording of evidence on 19.06.2023. However, due to a bona fide and inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner's counsel, the next date of hearing was incorrectly noted in his diary. Consequently, neither the petitioner nor his witnesses could remain present before the learned trial Court on the said date. 5. Immediately upon becoming aware of the listing of the matter on 19.06.2023, the petitioner moved an application under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC seeking a short accommodation and explaining the circumstances which led to his non-appearance. It was specifically pleaded that the absence of the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional, but was occasioned solely due to a bona fide mistake in noting the date of hearing. It wasfurther urged that the petitioner should not be made to suffer irreparable prejudice for an inadvertent lapse on the part of his counsel. 6. The petitioner further contended that closure of his evidence would virtually extinguish his right to substantiate the claim raised in the suit and would render the entire proceedings one-sided. It was submitted that procedural law is intended to facilitate adjudication on merits and not to punish a litigant for a bona fide error. The petitioner therefore prayed that one effective opportunity be granted to him to lead evidence, even subject to payment of appropriate costs, so that the controversy between the parties could be adjudicated on its merits. 4 7. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindji (KM), (2000) 8 SCC 532, wherein the Apex Court emphasized that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than on technical considerations. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the suit has remained pending since the year 2019 and that the petitioner has been granted repeated opportunities to adduce evidence. It was contended that despite approximately 36 adjournments granted by the learned trial Court, the petitioner failed to produce his witnesses and did not take any effective steps for expeditious prosecution of the suit. 9. It was further argued that the explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding noting of an incorrect date is wholly unsupported by any documentary material. Neither the diary in which the alleged wrong date was noted nor any contemporaneous record was produced before the Court to establish the bona fides of the explanation. The respondents therefore contended that the plea raised by the petitioner was merely an afterthought intended to secure yet another adjournment. 10. He further submits that the order-sheets reveal that the petitioner was repeatedly cautioned by the learned trial Court regarding the consequences of non-production of witnesses. The petitioner was specifically warned that failure to lead evidence would result in closure SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.06.24 11:07:21 +0530 5 of his evidence. Despite such warnings and despite imposition of costs on earlier occasions, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunities granted to him. Hence there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Shiv Cotex Vs. Trigun Auto Plast P. Ltd. And Others reported in 2011 (9) SCC 678. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 12. The controversy involved in the present petition pertains to the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the petitioner's right to lead evidence has been closed on account of his repeated failure to produce witnesses despite numerous opportunities. A perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court, placed on record along with the petition as well as the application seeking vacation of the interim order filed by the respondents on 14.10.2023, reveals that the civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 01.01.2019. The defendants entered appearance on 01.03.2019 and filed their written statement on 01.07.2019. Thereafter, issues were framed on 23.07.2019 and the matter was posted for recording of the plaintiff's evidence on 19.08.2019. 13. The record further discloses that between 19.08.2019 and 05.03.2020, as many as ten opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for adducing evidence; however, despite such indulgence, no witness was produced for examination. Subsequently, after the disruption 6 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the matter was again taken up on 25.02.2021 and thereafter repeatedly fixed for recording of the plaintiff's evidence. From February, 2021 onwards, approximately twenty-three further adjournments were granted at the instance of the plaintiff for the very same purpose. 14. The order-sheets dated 16.01.2023 and 21.02.2023 assume significance, as the learned trial Court specifically cautioned the plaintiff that in the event of failure to produce his witnesses, his right to lead evidence would stand closed. Despite such express warnings, the plaintiff failed to take effective steps for securing the attendance of his witnesses. Thereafter, on 14.03.2023, the learned trial Court granted further time subject to payment of costs. Even thereafter, by way of abundant indulgence, a last and final opportunity was granted on 12.06.2023, fixing the matter on 19.06.2023 for production of witnesses. However, on 19.06.2023, neither were the witnesses produced nor was any substantial progress made in the matter. Instead, the plaintiff once again sought adjournment. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rejected the prayer for further adjournment and proceeded to close the plaintiff's evidence. There has to be some limitation for granting adjournment on the explanation submitted by the plaintiff for adjournmentof the proceedings. In the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: 16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the 7 suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say `justifiable cause' what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only `sufficient cause' as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Order XVII CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit - whether plaintiff or defendant - must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril. Insofar as present case is concerned, if the stakes were high, the plaintiff ought to have been more serious and vigilant in prosecuting the suit and producing its evidence. 8 If despite three opportunities, no evidence was let in by the plaintiff, in our view, it deserved no sympathy in second appeal in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC. We find no justification at all for the High Court in upsetting the concurrent judgment of the courts below. The High Court was clearly in error in giving the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence when no justification for that course existed.” 15. Undoubtedly, adjournments had been granted on earlier occasions; however, judicial discretion in the matter of adjournments cannot be exercised endlessly. There must necessarily be a limit to the indulgence shown by the Court, particularly where a litigant repeatedly defaults despite adequate opportunities and specific warnings. 16. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chandra Govindji (K.M.), (supra) does not advance the petitioner's case as the facts of the said decision are clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the plaintiff had already availed more than 35 opportunities to produce his witnesses and yet failed to do so. What is equally significant is that although the plaintiff sought adjournment on the plea that his counsel had inadvertently noted an incorrect date of hearing, neither the particulars of the allegedly noted date nor the circumstances leading to such error have been disclosed. No extract of the advocate's diary or any contemporaneous material has been brought on record to substantiate the plea of bona fide mistake. In the absence of any supporting material, remains unverified and fails to inspire confidence. 9 17. The learned trial Court, therefore, cannot be faulted for holding that no sufficient cause had been shown for grant of yet another adjournment. Having regard to the prolonged pendency of the suit, the repeated defaults on the part of the plaintiff, the numerous opportunities already granted, and the specific warnings administered by the Court, the decision to close the plaintiff's evidence cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse. 18. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd. & Others, (2011) 9 SCC 678, lend support to the view that adjournments cannot be sought or granted as a matter of routine and that parties are expected to prosecute their cases with due diligence and responsibility. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the interim order, granted in favour of the petitioner shall stand vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge