Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:12656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 228 of 2025 1 - Subodh Kumar Chakrawarti S/o Shri N.M. Chakrawarti Aged About 49 Years R/o Panchshil Nagar West Charouda Tahsil Patan District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Sambal Kumar Chakrawarti S/o Shri N.M. Chakrawarti Aged About 47 Years Resident Of House No. 58/a Ward No. 26 Surya Nagar Stanam Dham Supela Bhilai Tahsil Durg District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Meera Sanyal D/o Shri N.M. Chakrawarti Aged About 54 Years Resident Of House No. 58/a Ward No. 26 Surya Nagar Stanam Dham Supela Bhilai Tahsil Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Soma Chakrawarti W/o Late Subal Chakrawarti Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Indira Nagar Charouda Tahsil Patan District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Ku. Ananya Chakrawarti D/o Late Subal Chakrawarti Aged About 8 Years Minor Representing Through Their Mother Smt. Soma Chakrawarti W/o Late Subal Chakrawarti, Resident Of Indira Nagar Charouda Tahsil Patan District Durg (C.G.) 2 5 - Aparna Chakrawarti D/o Late Subal Chakrawarti Aged About 13 Years Minor Representing Through Their Mother Smt. Soma Chakrawarti W/o Late Subal Chakrawarti, Resident Of Indira Nagar Charouda Tahsil Patan District Durg (C.G.)(Plaintiffs) 6 - Ku. Shikha Chakrawarti D/o N.M. Chakrawarti Aged About 51 Years R/o Panchshil Nagar West Charouda Tahsil Patan District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2). 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to call for entire record of civil Suit No. 47-A/2021, pending before First Additional Civil Judge Senior Division Bhilai- 3 District Durg (C.G.) for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 quash the impugned order dated 04/01/2025 ( Annexure P/1) passed by First Additional Civil Judge Senior Division Bhilai-3 District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 47- A/2021 and allow the application under Order 17 Rule 1 of Cr.P.C 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and the circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner /defendant No. 1 has assailed the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 by which his application under Order 17 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code has been rejected and the opportunity for the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed by the learned Trial Court as such this petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 submits that on two occasions i.e. 07.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 he could not adduce evidence as the witnesses could not appear in this case he has tried his level best to get the witnesses examined, however, it has not been done and, therefore, he has filed application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC seeking adjournment in order to lead evidence in this case. However, the learned trial Court has not considered this aspect and without granting any further opportunity dismissed the application while closing the 4 opportunity to adduce evidence which is not in accordance with law. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Smt. Vibha Singh Thakur Vs. Sukhdev (Dead) & Others reported in 2007 (2) C.G.L.J. 514 in which this Court has categorically stated that while considering application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC the present reason is required to be seen without influencing earlier adjournment. The reasons should have been taken into consideration and only on the basis that in earlier occasions adjournments were granted application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC cannot be dismissed and the opportunity to lead evidence cannot be closed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed and there is no requirement to interfere with the order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into note of this fact that only for two occasions i.e. 07.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 could not produce his witnesses for leading evidence and further considering this aspect for the 3rd occasion he has filed hand written application, I am fortified with the order passed by this 5 Court in the matter of Smt. Vibha Singh Thakur (Supra) in which this Court was of the view that the opportunity should have been granted to the parties to lead evidence and closing of opportunity will have bearing consequences. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this petition without noticing to the plaintiffs/respondents while setting aside order impugned closing opportunity of defendant to adduce evidence, however, the plaintiffs/respondents are at liberty to assail this order while filing appropriate application/ petition. The petitioner i.e. the defendant No. 1 is directed to produce his evidence with the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner/defendant No. 1 shall produce his all witnesses/evidence on his own risk on a date to be fixed by the trial Court which shall not be far than 1½ months from the first date falling on which the case is already fixed by the said court. (ii) If the evidence of the defendant’s side is not completed on the said date, the matter shall be adjourned to the next subsequent day and ultimately it has to be completed by adopting the procedure of day to day hearing. (iii) The above order shall further subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) by the plaintiff to the other side which shall be paid/deposited 6 prior to the commencement of his evidence. 7. With this observation and direction, the instant petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat