Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 WP227 No.423 of 2025 K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.06.25 16:13:25 +0530 2025:CGHC:27690 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 423 of 2025 1. Rameshwari W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu Aged About 44 Years 2. Deepak S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu Aged About 12 Years (Minor) In
Legal Reasoning
Care Of Mother Rameshwari W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu 3. Bhupesh S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu Aged About 10 Years (Minor) In Care Of Mother Rameshwari W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu All R/o Village - Bawanlakh, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara (C.G.) versus ... Petitioners 1. Sushila D/o Late Shri Pardeshi Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Baherghat, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 2. Chitrekha D/o Late Shri Pardeshi Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Dhara, Tahsil And District - Bemetara (C.G.) 3. Mulchand Sahu S/o Late Shri Pardeshi Sahu Aged About 44 Years 4. Bhanwarbati W/o Late Shri Pardeshi Sahu Aged About 70 Years Resp.No.3&4 are R/o Village - Bawanlakh, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 5. Kanti D/o Late Shri Pardeshi Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Dahimahi, Tahsil - Saja, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 6. State Of C.G. Through The Collector, District - Bemetara (C.G.) Cause title is taken from the Case Information System ... Respondents 1. 2 WP227 No.423 of 2025 For Petitioners : Shri Aman Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 25/6/2025 1. By the present petition the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dated 8-4-2025 passed by the Third Civil Judge Senior Division, Bemetara, in civil suit No.31-A/2020 wherein the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff witness has been closed. 2. (a) The case of the petitioners/defendants is that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction against them. In the suit, the plaintiff contended that the suit lands situated at village Bawanlakh, P.H No.18, R.1 Circle Berla, Tahsil Berln, District Bemetra, C.G total of about 3.96 hectares which belonged to the father of the plaintiff namely Late Shri Pardesi Sahu and therefore, is the ancestral property. It has also been contended that late Shri Pardeshi Sahu died in the year 2002 and the elder son namely Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu died in the year 2019. The lands bearing survey number 311, 449, 523, 534, 562, 607 total area 0.92 hectare belonged to the father of the plaintiff and were recorded in his name in the revenue papers. After the demise of the father of the plaintiff, the revenue records was corrected in the name of the children and wife of Late Shri Pardeshi Sahu. (b) The plaintiff also contended that the brother of the plaintiff namely Mulchand Sahu and Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu in collusion got the names 3 WP227 No.423 of 2025 of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1, 6 & 7 deleted from the revenue records and further got the lands partitioned in the year 2008-09 in their own names and did not inform the plaintiff and Defendant No.1. The plaintiff and Defendant No.I lived in their matrimonial houses and used to visit on the festivals and occasions. It has been contended in the plaint that on the false pretext for the KCC loan and other schemes the brothers of the plaintiff got their names mutated in the revenue records without informing the plaintiff of such act. (c) According to the plaintiff, when she asked for partition in the year 2018 and upon such request the brothers of the plaintiff tried dodging stated that they would make the partition after sometime and subsequently in the year 2019, the elder brother of the plaintiff namely Rameshwar Sahu died and subsequently it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the ancestral property of the plaintiff's father has been corrected in the name of the brothers of the plaintiff and no such information has been given to the plaintiff and no share has been given to the plaintiff and therefore, she had filed the civil suit before the Learned Trial Court. (d) The plaint averments were denied by the defendant No.3-5 by way of filing the written statement. They pleaded in the written statement that the lands were not ancestral property of the father of the plaintiff. It has been specifically pleaded that the plaintiff, Bhanwarbati, Chitrekha, Kanti has abandoned their respective shares as per the agreement dated 9/6/2003 and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. (e) Thereafter, the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff Sushila by the Defendant No.3-5 but the Counsel was out of station and 4 WP227 No.423 of 2025 therefore, the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff was closed by the Learned Trial Court. Thus, this petition. 3. Being aggrieved with this order, the defendants have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India mainly contending that if an opportunity of hearing is granted to cross-examine the sole witness of the plaintiff, then it will be in accordance with the concept of principle of natural justice and fair play, thus, he would pray for allowing
Decision
the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. The facts reflected from the record are that the learned trial Court has already closed the right of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff, but unless and until the witness is cross-examined by the defendant the correctness of the statement cannot be taken into consideration. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 8.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is listed on 28.06.2025 before the learned trial Court for evidence of plaintiff. On the said day, the plaintiff witness will remain present and cross-examination will be done on the same day by the defendant, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy today. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge 7. 8. Gowri