Sai Service Centre Vs Radheshyam Automobile

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

2024:CGHC:46433

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 798 of 2024

¶6

1 - Sai Service Centre, Through Owner Suresh Kumar Dagla, S/o Late Shankar Lal Dagla, Presently Aged 53 Years, R/o H.No. C-178, Bajaj Colony, Sector-2, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Radheshyam Automobile Proprietor Smt. Soniya Dagla W/o Alok Dagla, Presently Aged 40 Years R/o H.No. C-179, Bajaj Colony, Sector-2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocate

¶12

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶13

O rder on Board

¶14

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2024.11.28 11:10:59 +0530

¶15

26/11/2024

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 36 B/2019 by the Fourteenth Additional District Judge, Raipur, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC has been dismissed and the opportunity of the petitioner to adduce evidence has been closed.

¶18

Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for recovery of money and permanent injunction in the year 2019. On the date of hearing, an application for adjournment was preferred. The said application has been dismissed by the concerned trial Court on the ground that earlier, various opportunities have already been afforded to the petitioner and thereby, the opportunity to adduce evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff has been closed. Hence, this petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the date of hearing, the petitioner/plaintiff has gone to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for filing certain documents. He submits that the trial Court by adopting a hypertechnical approach, closed the opportunity of the plaintiff to adduce evidence on the ground that the plaintiff has already been granted several opportunities though sufÏcient cause has been shown by him for his absence on the relevant date. He submits that to meet the ends of justice, one more opportunity may be afforded to the petitioner.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order. She submits that there is a dispute between the family members.

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff has been pursuing the civil suit since the year 2019. The trial Court, only on the ground that earlier various opportunities were granted to the plaintiff, though certainly those opportunities would have been granted for bonafide reasons, and further without taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner that on the date of hearing, he had gone to the Supreme Court for filing certain documents to procure anticipatory bail, passed the impugned order.

¶23

Considering the facts’ situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- . The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant through her lawyer within a period of 21 days from the date of passing of this order and the trial Court, after receipt of a copy of this order, shall close the evidence of the plaintiff within a period of 45 days. Ordered accordingly.

¶24

Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Shyna

Sai Service Centre v. Radheshyam Automobile

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Service Centre v. Radheshyam Automobile

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjor Singh Vs Smt Milantin Bai

Lakhendra Kashyap Vs Saraswati

Narendra Kumar Kateliha Vs Pawan Kumar Agrawal

Smt. G. Poornima @ Saritha Vs G.T. Babu (Died Per Lr)

Rajesh Rajwade Vs Parvati

Sushila Bai Vs Smt. Ambika Bai