Allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. Kishan Lal Taram

Chhattisgarh HC12 Aug 2021WP227/121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside impugned orders denying the petitioners opportunity to produce witness evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, directing the trial court to grant such opportunity and proceed with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Trial Court directed to grant opportunity for producing evidence of witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC.

Rajendra Kumar Vs Kishan Lal Taram — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 121 of 2018

¶4

Rajendra Kumar, S/o Shri Kishan Lal Taram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Dharampur Camp, Ward No. 4, Kirandul, District-Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Ku. Pramila, D/o Shri Kishan Lal Taram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dharampur Camp, Ward No. 4, Kirandul, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kishan Lal Taram S/o Late Shri Goverdhan Lal Taram, Aged About 60 Years Occupation Junior Officer (U.E.C.B. 0778), N.M.D.C. Limited, Bailadila Iron Ore Mine, Kirandul, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Smt. Mathura Bai, W/o Shri Kishan Lal Taram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dharampur Camp, Ward No. 4, Kirandul, District-Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The General Manager, N.M.D.C. Limited, Bailadila Iron Ore Mine, Kirandul Complex, District-Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioners For Respondent

¶13

: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on board

¶15

12/08/2021

¶16

This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the orders dated 17.5.2017 and 22.11.2017 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.1A/2015 pending before the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Bacheli,

¶17

Page No.2

¶18

District-Dantewada by which the prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs for opportunity to produce witnesses has been dismissed.

¶19

It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner, that the case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence on 17.5.2017 on which date the petitioners filed the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC of the plaintiff Pramila and prayed for time to file affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC of the other witnesses. The learned trial Court has closed the opportunity of the petitioners for filing affidavits of other witnesses and fixed the case for plaintiffs evidence on the next date. The petitioners then filed another application under Section 151 CPC praying to recall the order dated 17.5.2017 along with the affidavits of the other witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, but the learned trial Court has rejected this application by order dated 17.5.2017, which is impugned. It is further submitted that till date case is at the stage of recording of plaintiffs evidence itself. The learned trial Court should have taken liberal view and granted opportunity to the petitioners, in case the petitioners are not granted such opportunity, the plaintiffs will suffer injustice, therefore, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and opportunity be granted to the petitioners.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that the trial Court cannot exercise the power under Section 151 CPC in granting opportunity to the petitioner. The learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the orders dated 17.05.2017 and 22.11.2017, therefore, the petition be dismissed.

¶21

Considered on the submissions. I am of this view that the learned trial Court should have taken liberal approach and granted opportunity to the petitioners, therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.5.2017 and 22.11.2017 both are set aside. The learned trial

¶22

Page No.3

¶23

Court is directed to grant opportunity to the petitioner for producing evidence of the witnesses whose affidavits are already filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and proceed with trial in accordance with law.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶26

Nisha

Rajendra Kumar v. Kishan Lal Taram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar v. Kishan Lal Taram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aklesh @ Akhilesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajaram Tripathi Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit

Sonu @ Panchram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narad Vs Rukmani

Maniram Vs Rukmani

Hemant Sakhre and 79 Ors. Vs Managing Director,Jyoti Structurers Ltd.