1 2026:CGHC:25764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 691 of 2026 1 - Sambhav Agro Industries (Partnership Firm) Through Partner Manoj Kumar Jain S/o- Late Moolchand Jain, Aged About 52 Years, R/o- House No.- 05, First Floor, In Front Of Shreeramnath Bhimsen Sabha Bhawan, Samta Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sachin Industries Limited Through Managing Director Shree Kaumin Patel, R/o- Plot No.- 77/4, F Road, Phase- 01, G.I.D.G. State Vatva, Ahmadabad, District- Ahmadabad (Gujarat) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 23/06/2026 Heard. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 2 205A/2018, 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.4,81,356/- and for mandatory injunction of Rs. 3,00,038/- totalling to Rs. 7,81,394/- 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. 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 18.03.2026 the plaintiff witness namely Manoj Jain was present however on the request made by the defendants the date was adjourned and last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff for recording of his evidence and the case was fixed on 13.04.2026 and thereafter on 01.05.2026. 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. On 01.05.2026, the plaintiff’s witness Manoj Jain appeared and his examination and cross examination has been concluded. When he 3 sought further time for producing other witnesses, the prayer was objected by the defendants and then the learned trial court after considering that the suit has been filed on 04.07.2018 and the case has been repeatedly fixed for plaintiff’s evidence from 10.05.2022 and by observing various dates of adjournment, it was held that sufficient opportunity was granted to the plaintiff for producing his witneeses and on 12.02.2026, last opportunity was also granted to him but he failed to produce his witnesses and on 13.04.2026, adjournment was again granted by imposing cost of Rs. 100/- upon the plaintiff. Despite that he failed to produce his witnesses. It was further argued that the petitioner should not be made to suffer the irreparable prejudice for inadvertent lapse on his part. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. The controversy involved in the present petition pertains to the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned trial Court 4 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 reveals that the civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 04.07.2018. Thereafter, issues were framed and the matter was posted for recording of the plaintiff's evidence on 10.05.2022, 04.07.2022, 06.08.2022, 14.10.2022, 21.11.2022, 21.12.2022, 03.02.2023, 21.03.2023, 19,06,2023, 21.07.2023,08.08.2023, 15.09.2023, 18.10.2023, 30.09.2023, 22.10.2024, 28.11.2024, 15.01.2025, 25.03.2025, 16.06.2025, 14.07.2025, 21.08.2025, 26.09.2025, 27.10.2025, 10.12.2025, 12.02.2026, 13.04.2026 and till 01.05.2026 but the plaintiff failed to conclude the evidence. Even on the date fixed as final opportunity the plaintiff did not ensure the presence of the witness for recording of examination-in-chief. Thereafter another opportunity was granted on 13.04.2026 with payment of costs however, the plaintiff again failed to produce the witness. Therefore the Court has observed that ample opportunities have already been exhausted and that the plaintiff had not shown due diligence in prosecuting the case. 9. The record further discloses that between 10.05.2022 till 13.04.2026, numerous opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for adducing evidence; however, despite such indulgence, no witness was produced for examination. 5 10. The order-sheets dated 12.02.2026 and 18.03.2026 last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to produce his witnesses and he was directed to ensure that the witness shall remain present before the court on the next date of hearing or else appropriate proceeding would be drawn against him. Despite such express warnings, the plaintiff failed to take effective steps for securing the attendance of his witnesses. Thereafter, on 13.04.2026, 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 fixing the matter on 13.04.2026 for production of witnesses. 11. However, on the said date also, the plaintiff again failed to produce the witness and proceed with the evidence. 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 adjournment of the proceedings. In the case of M/s. Shiv Cotexs. Vs. Trigun Auto Plast P. Ltd. And Others reported in 2011 (9) SCC 678, 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 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 6 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. 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 7 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.” 12. 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. 13. In the present case, the plaintiff had already availed numerous 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. 14. 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, 8 the decision to close the plaintiff's evidence cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse. 15. The principles enunciated by the Apex 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. 16. 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 SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.06.29 10:59:36 +0530