Allowed

Anjor Singh v. Smt Milantin Bai

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2024WP227/194/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against trial court order closing plaintiff's evidence in a title suit. The High Court held that a reasoned adjournment application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC justified granting one last opportunity to adduce evidence, subject to costs and time limits.

What did the court decide?

One opportunity granted to plaintiff to adduce evidence on payment of Rs.500/- cost; evidence to be completed within 60 days.

Anjor Singh Vs Smt Milantin Bai — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

2024:CGHC:46149

¶3

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.11.26 14:30:34 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WP227 No. 194 of 2024

¶7

Anjor Singh S/o Sakharam Khadiya Aged About 70 Years Occupation Agriculture And Laborer, R/o Village Nayapara No. 4 Sarangarh P.S. And Tehsil Sarangarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh, (Old District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt Milantin Bai Wd/o Kartikram Khadiya Aged About 74 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Kamla Nagar Sarangarh Tehsil Sarangarh District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (Old District Raigarh) (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Chandhas Bariha S/o Yudhisthir Binjhwar Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Milarabad Tehsil Basna District - Mahsamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Jagmohan S/o Mitku Khadiya Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bade Rampur Raigarh Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

		... Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Mr. B. N. Nande with Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocates.
For Res No.1 and 2	:	None though notice has been served.
For Res No.4	:	Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA.

¶14

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

¶15

25.11.2024

¶16

This Petition has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh to the Court of Civil Judge, Class-

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.25-A/2018, whereby, opportunity of the plaintiff to adduce evidence has been closed.

¶19

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in the year 2018. When the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC has been moved seeking adjournment on the ground that plaintiff has gone for earning livelihood and his son could not obtain any information. However, by the impugned order the trial Court closed the opportunity of the plaintiff to adduce evidence.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is poor person and at the relevant time he has gone outside for earning livelihood and such fact was brought to the notice of the concerned Court in the application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, however, the trial Court without considering the same closed the opportunity to adduce evidence which is not justifiable. He submits that by the impugned order the plaintiff has been deprived from establishing his substantial right, therefore, this petition may be allowed and one last opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff to adduce evidence.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the documents placed with the petition.

¶22

Considering the reasons assigned in the application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC and perusing the impugned order, it appears that opportunity to adduce evidence has been closed only because on the earlier date of hearing opportunity was already granted to the plaintiff and case is old one. However, this Court is of the view that on the relevant date suitable

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

application was already moved on behalf of the plaintiff stating appropriate reasons, therefore, ends of justice would be served if one more opportunity is granted to the plaintiff by imposing cost.

¶25

In view of the above, the trial Court shall grant one opportunity to adduce evidence to the plaintiff subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- which shall be payable to the defendant through their lawyer before the trial Court.

¶26

It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall complete his part of evidence within a period of 60 days from the date of this order.

¶27

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is allowed .

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶31

Ajay

Anjor Singh v. Smt Milantin Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjor Singh v. Smt Milantin Bai

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

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs Smt. Sushila Singh

Devraj Gond Vs Krishna Kumar Maravi

Itwari Ram Dewangan Vs Sadbhav Group Director (1) Wafiq Khan

Smt. Kasturi Thakur Vs Adhin Ram Sinha

Grihum Housing Finance Limited Vs Geeta Agrawal

Mangla Deshmukh Vs Rahul Deshmukh