1 2026:CGHC:16508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 374 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Singhania S/o Shri Baliram Singhania Aged About 63 Years R/o Bypass, Kotara Road, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Red Corporation Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Taranjeet Singh, S/o Kehar Singh Tuteja, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Agroha Bhawan, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Red Corporate Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Aanand, S/o Radheshyam Agrawal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Opposite District Hospital, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Late Shri Madan Laal Aged About 75 Years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Rajesh S/o Late Shri Madan Laal Aged About 45 Years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Sanjay S/o Late Shri Madan Laal Aged About 43 Years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.04.13 15:36:49 +0530 2 6 - Rajesh S/o Late Gopal Singhania Aged About 50 Years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Rakesh S/o Late Gopal Singhania Aged About 48 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Late Gopal Singhania Aged About 70 Years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 9 - Raju S/o Late Gopal Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 10 - Arun Singhania S/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 11 - Ajay Singhania S/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 12 - Smt. Manju Singhania D/o Late Manoj Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 13 - Rituraj Singhania S/o Late Manoj Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 14 - Sanibhya Singhania S/o Late Manoj Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 15 - Anil Singhania S/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 16 - Smt. Sarita Singhania D/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 17 - Smt. Kiran Singhania D/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3 18 - Smt. Manju Singhania D/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 19 - Smt. Mamta Singhania D/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 20 - Smt. Meena Singhania D/o Late Maniram Singhania R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 21 - Vijay S/o Late Shriram Singhania Aged About 65 Years R/o Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 22 - Arvind S/o Late Shriram Singhania Aged About 60 Years R/o Benaras Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 23 - Pawan Kumar S/o Late Shriram Singhania Aged About 57 Years R/o Agrawal Kotba, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 24 - Anup S/o Late Shriram Singhania Aged About 51 Years R/o Benaras Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 25 - Gangabai W/o Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Aged About 60 Years R/o P.S. Fagarpur, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 26 - Smt. Sangeeta Devi W/o Late Pawan Kumar Singhania Aged About 50 Years R/o Behind Gaushaala, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 27 - Bhupendra S/o Late Pawan Kumar Singhania Aged About 26 Years R/o Behind Gaushaala, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 28 - Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Late Prakash Singhania Aged About 68 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 29 - Prithvi S/o Late Prakash Singhania Aged About 57 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4 30 - Sharda Mohan D/o Late Prakash Singhania Aged About 55 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 31 - Shivam S/o Late Kirodi Singhania Aged About 26 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 32 - Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Late Kirodi Singhania Aged About 26 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 33 - Rajendra S/o Late Fattechand Singhania Aged About 64 Years R/o Sarlavila, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 34 - Santosh S/o Late Fattechand Singhania Aged About 58 Years R/o Behind Stadium, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 35 - Natwar S/o Late Fattechand Singhania Aged About 55 Years R/o Anathalay Colony, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 36 - Pramod Kumar S/o Late Baliram Singhania Aged About 65 Years R/o Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 37 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Kashiram Singhania Aged About 55 Years R/o Kotba Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 38 - Shiv Kumar S/o Late Kishanlal Singhania Aged About 68 Years R/o Sarlavila, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 39 - Ashok Kumar S/o Late Kishanlal Singhania Aged About 68 Years R/o Kotba Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 40 - Shravan S/o Late Kishanlal Singhania Aged About 63 Years R/o Sarlavila, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 41 - Suresh Singhania S/o Late Kishanlal Singhania Aged About 55 Years R/o Kotba Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5 42 - Kapil Singhania S/o Late Kishanlal Singhania Aged About 50 Years R/o Kotba Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 43 - Smt. Sulochana Devi W/o Late Baliram Singhania Aged About 80 Years R/o Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 44 - Smt. Seema Devi W/o Late Manoj Kumar Singhania Aged About 50 Years R/o Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 45 - Ayush Singhania S/o Late Manoj Kumar Singhania Aged About 26 Years R/o Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 46 - Smt. Chanda Devi W/o Late Gopiram Singhania Aged About 77 Years R/o Kotba Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 47 - Ram Avtar S/o Late Gopiram Singhania Aged About 55 Years R/o Kotba Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 48 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Gopiram Singhania Aged About 50 Years R/o Kotba Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 49 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) 50 - Smt. Usha Devi Singhania W/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Singhania (S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania) Aged About 65 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 51 - Lalit Singhania S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania Aged About 68 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 52 - Chandan Singhania S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania Aged About 65 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 53 - Shashi Singhania S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania Aged About 68 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 6 54 - Mohan Singhania S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania Aged About 61 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 55 - Sohan Singhania S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania Aged About 60 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 56 - Ramesh Singhania S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania Aged About 57 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 57 - Umesh Singhania S/o Late Shri Nathulal Singhania Aged About 55 Years R/o Singhania Road, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 09/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by learned Second District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. A/9/2018 whereby an application under Order 18 Rule 1 of the CPC read with Section 140 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 filed by the defendants No. 21(A) & 21 (B) has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the defendants No. 21(A) and 7 21(B) in a wrong premises on the ground that the other defendants No. 22 to 33 and 35 have supported the plaintiffs and therefore, proper cross-examination may not be possible if the other defendants have been permitted to examine first to the plaintiff’s witness. He would further submit that the present petitioner who is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court may not be able to answer the conflicting questions which might have been put by the respective defendants including the defendant No. 21(A) & 21 (B) to avoid any further controversy and contradictory evidence, the defendants No. 21(A) & 21 (B) may be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses in their order but not before the other defendants, therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality and the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the application filed by the defendants No. 21(A) & 21 (B), it transpires that since the defendants No. 21(A) & 21 (B) are the contesting defendant and the other defendants No. 22 to 29, 31 to 33 and 35 are supporting the plaintiffs, he prayed for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses first, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court, the said order has been challenged by the plaintiff in the present writ petition. 6. Order 18 rule 1 of CPC provided the hearing of the suit and examination of the witnesses and right to begin with the plaintiff unless the defendants admits the fact alleged by the plaintiff. It is not a case here that the defendants are claiming that they should be permitted to 8 examine first and, thereafter, the plaintiff may lead their evidence but it is a case here that who would be firstly cross-examined the plaintiff whether it is defendants No. 21(A) & 21 (B) or the other defendants. The defendants No. 21(A) & 21 (B) are claiming that since they are the contesting defendants and the other defendants are in support of the plaintiff, they may be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff first. 7. The Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Noorullah Khan & Others V/s Balmati & Others, (2024) SCC OnLine Chh 5551, has passed an order, Para 4 & 5 which reads as under: 4. Order 18 CPC deals with the hearing of the suit and examination of the witnesses and Rule 1 CPC deals with the question of right to begin and question of leading evidence which reads as under:- 1. Right to begin.- The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 18 CPC reads as under:- 2. Statement and production of evidence.-xxx (2) The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case. 5. In view of the aforesaid provision, it is explicit that normally, the Plaintiff has the right to begin unless the Defendant admits the facts alleged by the Plaintiff. So, if any of the Defendants supports the Plaintiff in whole or in part, then he should address the Court and lead his evidence first before the other Defendants, who do not support wholly or in part the Plaintiff’s case. If all the Defendants completely oppose the Plaintiff’s case, then the question of order of leading evidence amongst the Defendants is immaterial. It is only when the Defendants are divided into two groups, one group consisting of Defendants supporting the Plaintiff’s case in part and the other group consisting of Defendants, who do not support the Plaintiff’s case in any part that the question of order of leading evidence becomes important. In such 9 cases, among Defendants, the order of leading evidence should be as follows:- (1). Those Defendants who fully support the case of the Plaintiff. (2). Those Defendants who partly support the case of the Plaintiff. (3). Those Defendants who do not support the case of the Plaintiff in any part. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the petition, I do not find any infirmity or perversity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court warranting interference of this Court in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit