1 2026:CGHC:26423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 722 of 2026 Sevakram Sahu S/o Kartikram Aged About 58 Years R/o Kachardih, Ps Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Lata Bai W/o Dindayal Sahu Aged About 35 Years D/o Sevakram, R/o Boirgaon, Ps And Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund (C.G.), District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Richa Sahu, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. Heard. SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.01 11:34:57 +0530 2 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed by learned First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 25A/2023 whereby the right of the defendant No.1 to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses has been forfeited and also against the order dated 04.04.2026 by which the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Section 151 of CPC for permitting the defendant No.1 to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court where the respondent No.1 is prosecuting a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property. After framing of the issues, the learned trial Court has proceeded for recording evidence of the parties and on 10.12.2025, the plaintiff was appeared for her examination as P.W.-1, however, due to paucity of time, the cross-examination of the plaintiff could not be started and the date was adjourned for 20.01.2026. On 20.01.2026, the counsel who was representing the defendant No.1 had engaged in a Sessions trial before the learned Sessions Court, Mahasamund in case of “State V/s Shrishti Chandrakar” and for that reason, he could not appeared before the learned trial Court upto 4:30 P.M. on that date and after a repeated call, the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses has been forfeited at 4:30 P.M. and fix the case for defendant’s evidence on 12.02.2026. He would also submit that on the same day at about 5:15 P.M., learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for recalling of the earlier order and permitting him to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses, the 3 said application was decided on 04.04.2026 and thereby rejected the application filed by the defendant No.1. He would further submit that there is no deliberate or intentional attempt to delay the trial of the case but only due to unavoidable circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 could not appeared before the learned trial Court as he engaged in another case and his junior counsel was having personal difficulties on that day. He would also submit that in the the earlier proceedings, the defendant No.1 has duly and diligently defended his case and the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses may be provided after imposing appropriate cost. The subject matter of the suit is for the partition of the suit property and if the defendant No.1 is not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses, it would prejudice his legal right, therefore, the petition may be allowed and impugned order may be set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to fix a date for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with petition as well as order sheets of the learned trial Court. 5. From perusal of the order sheet dated 20.01.2026, it transpires that on being repeated call, the counsel who representing the defendant No.1 was not appeared and at about 4:30 P.M., his right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses has been forfeited and the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence. It further transpires that on the same day at about 5:15 P.M., the counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for permitting them to cross- 4 examine the plaintiff’s witnesses, however, the said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 04.04.2026. It further transpires from the order sheet dated 20.01.2026 that at about 12:30 P.M., Mr. Ramavtar Rai who is the junior counsel appeared before the learned trial Court and informed that his senior counsel has to cross- examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and the proceeding of the case is ordered to be taken after sometime, however, the counsel who has to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses was not appeared upto 5:15 P.M. 6. A copy of the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Section 151 of CPC is also annexed as Annexure P-6 and from perusal of the said application, it transpires that the defendant No.1 has explained the non-appearance of his counsel from the earlier part of the day, however, the fact remains that on the same day, the application under Section 151 of CPC has been filed for recalling of the earlier order and permitting the defendant No.1 to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. 7. In "Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Another" 1955 (1) SCC 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that procedural laws are intended to facilitate justice and should not be applied in a manner that results in injustice. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that denial of opportunity would result in failure of justice. In para 14 of the judgment, it has been held that:- “14. Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue 5 in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.” 8. The power to close evidence must be exercised cautiously and only in cases of persistent negligence or abuse of process. In "Kailash v. Nanhku and Others" 2005 (4) SCC 480, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that procedural provisions, even if couched in mandatory terms, should be construed as directory where strict adherence would defeat justice. Relying upon the judgment of "Sangram Singh" (supra), in para 31 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 28 and 29 in the case of "Nanhku" (supra) that:- “28. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. The observations made by Krishna Iyer, J. in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar¹º are pertinent: (SCC p. 777, paras 5-6) "The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. ... Justice is the goal of jurisprudence processual, as much as substantive." 29. In State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari the Court approved in no unmistakable terms the approach of moderating into wholesome directions what is regarded as mandatory on the principle that: (SCC p. 720) "Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions 6 are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice." In Ghanshyam Dass v. Pominion of India the Court reiterated the need for interpreting a part of the adjective law dealing with procedure alone in such a manner as to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather than to defeat it as all the laws of procedure are based on this principle.” 9. Be that as it may, the cross-examination of the witnesses is the integral part of the justice delivery system and the defendant has every right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and the technicalities can not be permitted to come on the way of adjudicating the dispute between the parties. It is not that the defendant No.1 has repeatedly or deliberately made attempt to avoid the proceedings or delayed the same. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity may be granted to the defendant No.1 to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses by imposing some costs. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 and 04.04.2026 are hereby set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to fix a date for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4500/- (Rs.1500/- for each witnesses) which is payable before the learned trial Court to the witnesses on their appearance and the learned trial Court is further directed not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to the defendant No.1 for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. Thereafter, to proceed in the suit in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit