Allowed

Secretary, Vindhyavasini Shikshan Samiti v. Smt. Shyama Bai

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2024WP227/347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the dismissal of an adjournment application and closure of evidence by a trial court after multiple past adjournments were granted. The High Court interfered, allowing one last opportunity to lead evidence upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Afforded one last opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead entire evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-

Secretary, Vindhyavasini Shikshan Samiti… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:30153

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 347 of 2023

¶6

Secretary, Vindhyavasini Shikshan Samiti Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. Smt. Shyama Bai W/o Late Shri Parasram Yadav Aged About 65 Years

¶10

2. Satish Yadav S/o Late Shri Parasram Yadav Aged About 43 Years Both are R/o Ekta Nagar, Ama Talab Road, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. D. N. Prajapti, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

09/08/2024

¶17

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Second, Civil Judge Class- I, Dhamtari (C.G), whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 1

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking adjournment was dismissed and also the opportunity to adduce evidence was closed.

¶20

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for declaration of possession. The case was fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence. On 20.02.2023, one of the witness was examined and the case was listed on 14.03.2023 for further evidence of the remaining witness. On such date, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for adjournment stating that the said witness had gone somewhere due to some work. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that earlier, various adjournments have already been granted in favour of the plaintiff and thereby, the right to adduce further evidence by the plaintiff was closed. Hence, this Petition.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before closing of the opportunity to adduce evidence by the plaintiff, no warning or caution was given by the trial Court. In this regard, she would draw attention of the Court towards the order-sheet dated 20.02.2023, in which, no warning or caution was given. She would further submit that the past adjournments granted to the plaintiff was based on reasonable and adequate grounds and for bonafide reasons, which was allowed by the trial Court. However, now, when an adjournment was sought on a particular date due to certain reason, it was not granted. Therefore, she submits that to advance the cause of justice, at least one opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff and a suitable direction may be issued to the concerned trial Court. For the above submission, she would place reliance on the matter of State Bank Of India vs. Chandra Govindji

¶22

(2000) 8 SCC 532.

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 & 2/Defendant No.1 & 2 supports the impugned order. He would submit that the present case pertains to the year 2016 and the plaintiff was granted a last opportunity in the year 2021, therefore, closing of the opportunity to adduce evidence by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is warranted.

¶25

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

6. On perusal of the Order dated 20.02.2023, it would show that one of the witness has been examined and on 14.03.2023, the case was fixed for the evidence of the remaining witness of the plaintiff. However, on such date, an adjournment application was moved, as the said witness had gone somewhere for certain work and therefore, the trial Court considering the past adjournments sought by the plaintiff, dismissed the application.

¶27

7. It is well settled that the earlier adjournments, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined. It is also well settled that closing of the opportunity to adduce the evidence is a harsh step and further the procedures are the handmaid of justice and not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.

¶28

8. In view of such, this Court deems it appropriate to afford one last opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead his entire evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. The aforesaid cost shall be paid to the private defendants through their counsel and the trial Court, after receipt

¶29

4 / 4

¶30

of a copy of this order, within a period of 21 days, shall close the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff. Ordered accordingly.

¶31

9. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶34

Priyanka

Secretary, Vindhyavasini Shikshan Samiti v. Smt. Shyama Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary, Vindhyavasini Shikshan Samiti v. Smt. Shyama Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Bhagat Vs Md. Imran

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Smt. Ahilya Choudhary

Deepak Garhewal ( Now Dead) through Lrs Vs Dev Prasad Suryawanshi

Onkar Sahu Vs Raspal Singh

Ramkhilawan Nirmalkar Vs Tulesh Vaishnav

Smt. Asha Devi Vs Smt. Seema Singh