1 CGHC010331942026 2026:CGHC:38951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1130 of 2026 Chowaram Purena S/o Late Bhukhan Lal Satnami Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Beldar Seoni, Ward No. 13, Tahsil- Kharora, Block- Tilda District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Amritlal S/o Late Bhukhan Lal Satnami Aged About 58 Years Resided At- Village Beldar Seoni, Ward No. 13, Tahsil- Kharora, Block- Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Bhajanlal S/o Late Bhukhan Lal Satnami Aged About 54 Years Resided At- Village Beldar Seoni, Ward No. 13, Tahsil- Kharora, Block- Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhaganlal S/o Late Bhukhan Lal Satnami Aged About 52 Years Resided At- Village Beldar Seoni, Ward No. 13, Tahsil- Kharora, Block- Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Bhagwandas S/o Late Bhukhan Lal Satnami Aged About 48 Years Resided At- Village Beldar Seoni, Ward No. 13, Tahsil- Kharora, Block- Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Ramkuwanr Bai Wd/o Late Bhukhan Lal Satnami Aged About 80 Years R/o- Village Beldar Seoni, Ward No. 13, Tahsil- Kharora, Block- Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. Heard. SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.07 15:19:33 +0530 2 2. The present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.07.2026, passed by the learned First Additional Judge, Tilda, to the Court of the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.20-A/2023, whereby the plaintiff's right to lead evidence has been forfeited. 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 declaration of title, partition, possession of the suit property and also for permanent injunction in respect of the ancestral agricultural land against the defendants, situated at Village Beldarseoni, Tahsil Kharora, District Raipur. After framing of the issues, the case was fixed for recording of the plaintiff's evidence. On 27.04.2026, the plaintiff was examined; however, the plaintiff's other two witnesses could not appear for recording of their evidence, though repeated time was granted to the plaintiff. The affidavits of the plaintiff's witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC have already been submitted before the learned trial Court. But his right to lead evidence has been forfeited by observing that the plaintiff has failed to produce his witnesses for evidence, which shows that the plaintiff is not obeying the orders of the Court and is not taking any interest in producing his witnesses. 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 the case was fixed for recording of defendants' evidence, but the examination of the defendants has not been started yet. Therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff to lead his evidence 3 and to prove his case. The learned trial Court, instead of forfeiting the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence, may adjourn the case 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 17.07.2026, it transpires that repeatedly time was granted to the plaintiff for recording of his evidence, but on all occasions he has taken time. On 13.02.2026, a last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff for leading evidence, and thereafter, on 25.02.2026, one further opportunity was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. Subsequently, on 24.03.2026 and 27.04.2026, the plaintiff appeared before the Court for his cross- examination and was discharged after completion of the same. The plaintiff was thereafter directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Raipur, produce the receipt thereof, and ensure the presence of his witnesses for their examination and cross-examination. However, even on 17.07.2026, the plaintiff failed to produce his witnesses for recording of their evidence. 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 4 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 merits. In the present case, notwithstanding the repeated adjournments sought by the plaintiff, considering that the suit involves declaration of title, partition and possession and also permanent injunction 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 17.07.2026, 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 produce his evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the defendants before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff shall keep his remaining witnesses present before the learned trial Court on the date fixed and shall ensure that their 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