Allowed

Sukhan v. Laxmaniya

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2024WP227/59/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside an order closing the plaintiffs' right to examine further evidence in a civil suit. The court held that ample opportunity was provided and directed the trial court to grant additional chances for witness examination to ensure fair play.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 15.12.2023 setting aside the plaintiffs' right to examine further evidence against them has been allowed quashed. An additional opportunity to examine witnesses was directed.

Sukhan Vs Laxmaniya — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 59 of 2024

¶5

Sukhan S/o Bhaglu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Ajirmakala, P.S. And Tahsil - Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶6

Heersay S/o Bhaglu Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Ajirmakala, P.S. And Tahsil - Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

Pandra S/o Bhaglu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Badauli, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶8

---- PETITIONERS/Plaintiffs

¶9

Versus

¶10

Laxmaniya D/o Karamsay Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Bhittikhurd, P.S. and Tahsil Abmikapur, District Surguja (C.G.),...(Defendant)

¶11

Shyampati W/o Karamsay Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Bhittikhurd, P.S. And Tahsil Abmikapur, District Surguja (C.G.),...(Defendant)

¶12

Somarsay S/o Bandhu Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Ajirmakala, P.S. and Tahsil Lundra, District Surjguja (C.G.)

¶13

Madarasi S/o Bandhu Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Ajirmakala, P.S. and Tahsil Lundra, District Surjguja (C.G.),..(Defendant)

¶14

Kendu S/o Bandhu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Ajirmakala, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surjguja (C.G.),..(Defendant)

¶15

State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector, District Surguja (C.G.),.. (Defendant)

¶16

------- RESPONDENTS/Defendants

¶17

For the Petitioners Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent No.6 Mr. Ruhul Ameen Memon, P.L.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

25.01.2024

The petitioners have filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Third Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No. 218(A)/2017 by which the right of the plaintiffs to examine further evidence have been closed on the count that the case is five years old and the case was fixed 10.02.2020 for the first time for plaintiffs’ evidence since than only one witness has been examined. It is also observed by the trial Court that despite opportunity granted to the plaintiffs rest of the witnesses have not been examined on 13.04.2023, 02.06.2323, 12.06.2023, 06.07.2023, 04.08.2023, 07.09.2023 and on 15.12.202.

¶24

Record of the case would show that the plaintiffs have filed the Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 20.11.2017 thereafter the matter was fixed on 10.02.2020 for plaintiffs evidence for the first time as per the order sheets annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that ample opportunity was granted to the plaintiffs despite they have not completed the evidence.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that out of seven occasions, the defendants have sought 2 to 3 occasion which has also considered by the trial Court while counting the opportunity granted to the plaintiffs and would pray for grant of opportunity to the petitioners for examining the witnesses before the trial Court. He would further submit that the order is against the principle of natural justice, fair play and deserves to be quashed by this Court.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State would submit that the order is legal, justified, as such does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

Considering the fact that the plaintiffs right have been closed by the trial Court on 15.12.2023 and the defendants witnesses have also not be examined and it has been informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the case is fixed for the defendants evidence on 07.02.2024, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 15.12.2023 is set aside by giving additional opportunity to the plaintiffs

¶29

¶30

to examining his witnesses which will be inonconformity with the principle of natural justice, fair play.

¶31

Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall submit examinationin-chief by way of affidavit of the witnesses before the trial Court on 07.02.2024 and on 12.02.2024 thereafter the trial Court will fix the date for examination of the witnesses. It is also directed that the plaintiffs evidence will be completed upto 20.03.2024.

¶32

With this observation, the writ petition is allowed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶35

Santosh

Sukhan v. Laxmaniya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhan v. Laxmaniya

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

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Atish Kumar @ Babalu Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Paro Vs Smt. Chandar

Smt. P. Paul Vs The Registrar General

Bihari Rajput Vs Krishna Dewangan

Laxmi Prasad @ Bhuru Vs State of Chhattisgarh