1 CGHC010301812026 2026:CGHC:34650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 996 of 2026 1 - Rajendra Rai S/o Narmada Prasad Rai Aged About 46 Years Partner C G Industries Solution, Having Its Office At Shop No. 8, Beside Caramal School, Dhimapur, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Priyanka Singh W/o Prakash Singh Aged About 42 Years Proprietor Crsecent Engineering, Having Its Office At Plot No. 30/05, Daya Nagar, Rishali Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (By Attorney Prakash Singh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order On Board 06.08.2026 1. Present is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned 9th District Judge District Durg passed in Civil Suit A/85/2025, whereby the learned trial Court fortified to right to file list of witness to the defendant and fixed the case for recording of plaintiff’s evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court where the plaintiff is prosecuting the suit for damages and malicious prosecution. He ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 would further submit that on 30.06.2026 the issues have been framed by the learned trial Court and then the date was fixed for submission of list of witnesses by the parties and the date was fixed on 08.07.2026, however, on 08.07.2026, when the petitioner/defendant could not file the list of witness, his right to file the list of witnesses have been closed. He would further submit that if the list of witnesses could not have been taken on record, he might have precluded from producing the witnesses in his support. He would also submit that only on one date for which, when the petitioner/defendant could not produce the list of witnesses, his right to file list of witnesses have been forfeited. He would also submit that during the entire proceedings he has not taken any unnecessary adjournments and even the stage of defence witnesses have not come and it is fixed for recording of the plaintiff’s witnesses. Therefore, the defendant may be permitted to file the list of witnesses and impugned order may be set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. From the order-sheets of the trial Court (Annexure P/1), it transpires that on 15.06.2026, the case was fixed for framing of issues and on 30.06.2026, the issues have been framed. On that day, the parties were directed to submit their list of witnesses and the date was fixed on 08.07.2026. Further, from 08.07.2026, when the defendant failed to produce the list of witnesses, his right to 3 file the list of witnesses have been forfeited and the case has been fixed for recording of plaintiff’s evidence. 5. It further transpires that defendant is diligently prosecuting the suit and only on one hearing his right to file defendant’s list of defendant’s witnesses have been forfeited. Though, the trial Court to prevent the unnecessary adjournments, however, the technicality by not filing the list of witnesses on a single day and forfeiting his right to file list of witnesses may prejudice his defence or he might have been precluded from producing his defence. 6. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/defendant be permitted to file his list of witnesses before the learned trial Court and if such list of witnesses is being filed, the same shall be taken on record. 7. With these observation, the present writ petition is allowed. 8. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit in accordance with law on its own merits. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Saxena