1 CGHC010331562026 2026:CGHC:38756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1104 of 2026 M/s Sandeep Real And M Supplier Pro. Sandeep Tiwari S/o Late N P Tiwari Age About 43 Years, R/o R K Petrol Pump Jagdamba Colony Sipat Road Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus Ajay Singh S/o Late Shri Khedu Singh Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o Siyaram Mandir Road, Near Pani Tanki Budhti Para, Ponshra Post Ponshra Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.08.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.02 17:29:54 +0530 2 passed by learned Eleventh District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. B/19/2024, whereby the right to lead evidence of the plaintiff has been forfeited after rejecting their application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, who is prosecuting a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,08,43,707/- against the defendant. After framing of the issues, the case was fixed for recording of the plaintiff's evidence. However, due to his ill health, the plaintiff could not appear for recording of his evidence. Though, repeatedly time was granted to the plaintiff, on 03.08.2024 also, an application has been filed by the plaintiff on the ground of his ill health for adjournment of the proceeding for any other day, so that he may be able to record his evidence. But the said application filed by the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected and his right to lead evidence has been forfeited by observing that the medical documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith his application is not bonafide. He would further submit that forfeiting the right to lead evidence of the plaintiff would prejudice his right to prosecute the suit and by forfeiting his right, he may not be able to prove his case against the defendant. He would also submit that though the case has been fixed for recording of the defendant's evidence and the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC has also been filed by the defendants but the cross-examination of the defendants has not been started yet. A substantial amount of more than Rs. 1 crore is involved in the present suit for which the plaintiff is claiming from the defendant, therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to the 3 plaintiff to lead his evidence and to prove his case. The learned trial Court instead of forfeiting the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence may adjourn for any other day after imposing appropriate costs, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and one opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff to record his evidence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition and gone through the order. 5. From the impugned order dated 03.08.2026, it transpires that repeatedly time was granted to the plaintiff for recording of his evidence but in all the times he has taken time on the ground of his ailment. On 03.08.2026 also, he made an application alongwith the medical certificate. However, the learned trial Court has observed that the medical certificate is not satisfactory, as there is no mention of the name of the hospital or the doctor. It transpires from the order impugned that in all the times the plaintiff has taken time on the ground of his ailment, however, there is no satisfactory documents of medical treatment has been annexed with the petition. 6. It is well settled that the right of a party to lead evidence is an important facet of the right to effectively prosecute or defend a civil proceeding, and such right ought not to be denied in a manner that results in shutting out the party from establishing its case on merits, unless the conduct of the party is such as to justify such a consequence. Though the Court has ample power under the Code of Civil Procedure to regulate proceedings and decline repeated or unjustified adjournments, the power to forfeit the right to lead evidence must be exercised cautiously and in furtherance of the ultimate object of adjudication on 4 merits. In the present case, notwithstanding the repeated adjournments sought by the plaintiff on the ground of ill health, considering that the suit involves a substantial monetary claim and forfeiture of his right to lead evidence would substantially impair his ability to prove his case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served by affording him one final opportunity to lead his evidence, subject to payment of appropriate costs and a condition that no further opportunity shall be granted. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2026, whereby the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence has been forfeited, is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to fix a date and to afford one opportunity to the plaintiff to enter the witness box and produce his evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant, payable to him before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff shall remain present before the learned trial Court on the date fixed and shall ensure that his evidence is recorded without seeking any further adjournment. It is further directed that, in the event the plaintiff fails to avail the aforesaid opportunity, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit