1 CGHC010246912026 2026:CGHC:28339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 797 of 2026 1 - Vikash Kumar Sonjhari S/o Ganeshram Sonjhari Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mandai P.S. Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajesh Kumar Sonjhara S/o Ramkhilavan Sonjhara Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, P.S. And Tahsil Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Aam Janta Through Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Bank Of India Branch Manager Branch Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Central Bank Of India Branch Manager Branch Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kotak Mahindra Bank Branch Manager Branch Janjgir, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Icici Bank Branch Manager Branch Champa, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - R T O Office Through Parivahan Adhikari Lagara, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sarita Bai Sonjhari R/o Village Mandai/ Khamhariya, P.S. Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Savitri Shriwas R/o Village Barpali Kala, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Present Address Mandai Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 : Ms. Shruti Jha, Advocate For Respondents No. 6 : Ms. Richa Sahu, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 08/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Bilaspur, in Succession Case No. 68 of 2022 and prayed for the following relief:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records of concerned court. 10.2 Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17/06/2026 whereby the learned Trial Court closed the opportunity of cross-examination of the applicant. 10.3 Direct the learned Trial Court to afford one effective opportunity to the applicant for cross-examination of the concerned witness, subject to such terms and costs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have instituted proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking issuance of a succession certificate and have been diligently prosecuting the matter since its institution. It is submitted that the petitioners have remained present on every date of hearing through their counsel, have adduced their evidence and 3 examined their witnesses, and there has been no deliberate lapse or lack of diligence on their part at any stage of the proceedings. On 17.06.2026, the matter was fixed for recording the evidence of the non- applicant's witness. After completion of the examination-in-chief, the junior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners requested the Trial Court to defer the cross-examination to the next date on the ground that the arguing counsel was engaged before the High Court and, therefore, was unable to remain present before the Trial Court. It is argued that the request was bonafide and did not disclose any intention on the part of the petitioners to delay the proceedings. The learned Trial Court, instead of exercising its discretion judiciously, rejected the request solely on the ground that the junior counsel was unable to specify the particulars of the case in which the senior counsel was appearing before the higher court and further observed that the petitioners intended to delay the proceedings. Such observations are unsupported by any material available on record and have been recorded merely on surmises and conjectures. 3. It is next submitted that the deposition sheet itself demonstrates that the examination-in-chief of the witness commenced only at about 4:00 p.m. and concluded at about 4:30 p.m. Thus, practically no reasonable opportunity was available for conducting an effective cross-examination on the same day. It is argued that in these circumstances, the request for a short adjournment was neither unreasonable nor intended to protract the proceedings. He would further submit that the right to cross-examine a witness constitutes an integral component of the principles of natural justice and forms an indispensable part of a fair 4 adjudicatory process. By closing the petitioners' right of cross- examination without affording even one effective opportunity, the Trial Court has seriously prejudiced the petitioners in presenting their case. It is contended that the testimony of the non-applicant's witness has remained untested, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioners and resulting in the denial of a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings. It is also submitted that the record of the proceedings clearly indicates that the petitioners had been regularly appearing before the Trial Court and had participated in the proceedings throughout. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court that the petitioners intended to delay the matter is wholly unfounded and contrary to the record. 4. Lastly, he would submit that the object of every judicial proceeding is to decide the controversy on its merits after affording adequate opportunity to both sides. Since permitting one effective opportunity for cross-examination would not have caused any prejudice to the respondents, whereas denial thereof has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners, the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with settled principles of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 17.06.2026 be set aside and the petitioners be granted one effective opportunity to cross-examine the non-applicant's witness, subject to such terms and costs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Central Bank of India, being a formal party to the proceedings, submits that the Bank has no substantive interest in the inter se dispute between the rival 5 claimants regarding the issuance of the succession certificate. It is submitted that the Bank shall abide by any order or direction that may be passed by the competent Court and has no objection if the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed to the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the examination-in- chief of the respondent's witness Sarita Bai was recorded on 17.06.2026 and, immediately thereafter, the petitioners sought a short adjournment for the purpose of conducting the cross-examination on the ground that their senior counsel was engaged before the High Court. The deposition sheet further indicates that the examination-in- chief commenced at about 4:00 p.m. and concluded at about 4:30 p.m. In such circumstances, the request for a short accommodation cannot, by itself, be construed as a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. The record also does not disclose any continuous default or repeated conduct on the part of the petitioners warranting the consequence of closure of their right to cross-examine the witness. 8. It is well settled that the right of cross-examination is one of the most valuable safeguards available to a litigant and constitutes an essential facet of the principles of natural justice. Unless the conduct of a party clearly demonstrates abuse of the process of the Court or wilful and repeated default, the opportunity to cross-examine should not ordinarily be denied, particularly when such denial is likely to cause serious prejudice in adjudication of the dispute. Judicial discretion in regulating 6 the proceedings is undoubtedly wide; however, such discretion is required to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and judicious manner so as to advance the cause of justice rather than to defeat it on technical or procedural considerations. In the present case, the Trial Court proceeded to close the petitioners' right of cross-examination merely because the junior counsel was unable to furnish particulars regarding the engagement of the senior counsel before the higher court and on the assumption that the petitioners intended to delay the proceedings. Such conclusion is not supported by any material on record and appears to have been arrived at without considering whether one effective opportunity could have been granted without causing prejudice to the opposite party. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from an unduly technical approach and has resulted in the denial of a fair opportunity to the petitioners to test the veracity of the respondent's witness. Since the testimony of the witness has remained untested, permitting the impugned order to stand may occasion failure of justice. At the same time, the inconvenience caused to the respondent on account of the adjournment can be adequately compensated by imposing appropriate costs and by directing the Trial Court to grant one more opportunity for cross-examination without permitting any unnecessary adjournment thereafter. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.06.2026 deserves to be and is hereby set aside to the extent of the forfeiture of the right to cross-examine the non-applicant’s witness, and the petitioners are entitled to one more opportunity to cross-examine the respondent's 7 witness. Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit