1 CGHC010311372026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1120 of 2026 1 - Kanhaiyalal @ Pintu S/o Late Bachchan Ram, Aged About 38 Years Occupation -Cultivator, R/o Village Mahora, Police Station And Tehsil Lundra, Disrtict Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Gharbharan S/o Lakshan, Aged About 50 Years Occupation -Cultivator, R/o Village Mahora, Police Station And Tehsil Lundra, Disrtict Surguja (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Ashok Shukla, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 01.09.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the IInd Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No.95-A/2011 whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 10(1)CPC and under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC have been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial court who is prosecuting a suit for INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.09.02 17:12:20 +0530 2 permanent injunction. During pendency of suit, the plaintiff’s evidence has been recorded and after closure of plaintiff’s evidence, the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence and subsequently it was fixed on 17.07.2026. He would further submit that on 27.07.2026 the cross examination of defendant’s witnesses was started, however, due to paucity of time their cross examination could not be concluded and the case was further adjourned. On 29.07.2026, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC for calling of original records of Succession Case No.17/2017 decided on 12.02.2019 by the Civil Judge Class-I, Ambikapur, District Surguja, on the ground that the trial of the present suit is expedited and time was not granted to obtain certified copy of the said order. Therefore, record of said Succession Case may be called. Another application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the same day i.e. 29.07.2026 for taking documents i.e. copy of order dated 12.02.2019 passed in Succession Case No.17/2017, copy of order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.07/2019 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, copy of the order statement of Hirmaniya Bai recorded by Naib Tehsildar in Revenue Case and also copy of the award dated 31.01.2015 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur in MACT Case No.167/2013. He would further submit that the documents filed by the petitioner along with application are very relevant for just decision of the case. Though the defendant’s evidence has also been closed and case has been fixed today i.e. 01.09.2026 for final hearing of the suit before the trial court, but by imposing appropriate cost, the documents may be allowed to be taken on record in view of its relevancy and necessity. He would further submit that the 3 parties may not be deprived to file relevant document merely on technical reason. Though some delay has been occurred in filing those documents, but appropriate cost may be imposed and therefore the documents filed by the petitioner may permitted to be taken on record by setting aside the impugned order. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of copy of application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 10(1)CPC, it transpires that the petitioner prayed for calling of the record of Succession Case No.17/2017 decided on 12.02.2019 by the Civil Judge Class-I Ambikapur. It has been averred in the application that time was not granted by the trial court to obtain certified copy of the said documents to produce it before the trial court. From the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC filed by the petitioner it further transpires that copy of the said order 12.02.2019 passed in Succession Case No.17/2017 was also annexed which was claiming to be taken on record by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was already in possession of said document which was filed along with application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, it cannot be said that calling of original record of Succession Case No.17/2017 was required. Further, the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is pending since 2011 and he has filed his application under Order 13 Rule 10(1)CPC on 29.07.2026 by stating that trial court is expediting the proceeding of suit and time was not granted to obtain certified copy of the said order. In the opinion of this court, the petitioner could not make out any case for calling of said record of Succession Case No.17/2017 and thereby, the rejection of his application under Order 13 Rule 10(1)CPC appears to be correct. 4 5. So far as the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is concerned, when this court examines the order passed by the trial court, it would reveal that the suit was filed in the year 2011 by the plaintiff; the plaintiff’s evidence has been closed, the defendant’s evidence has already been recorded and as per the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the defendant’s evidence has also been closed and the case has been fixed for final hearing today itself before the trial court. Since evidence of the parties have already been recorded and despite having sufficient opportunity to file those documents before the trial court, the plaintiff could not avail his opportunity to file the same at an appropriate stage, but at the fag end of the trial of the suit he filed the documents that too after recording evidence of defendants. Thus, the trial court has rightly observed in its order that once the evidence has been started and the plaintiff’s evidence has been closed and defendant’s evidence has been started, it cannot be reopened and permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to file those documents it would amount to fulfill the lacuna. 6. After having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the applications filed by the petitioner and the order passed by the trial court, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in rejecting both the applications of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder