Smt. Leenashree Tiwari Vs Dinesh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Leenashree Tiwari Vs Dinesh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of the application under Section 151 CPC (permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses) deserved to be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no good ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC; accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Having voluntarily refused to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses while their evidence was being recorded, and knowing the facts of the case, defendant No. 1 cannot afterwards be permitted to cross-examine those witnesses at a later stage merely because settlement talks did not materialise.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WP227 No. 135 of 2025, order dated 10.02.2025 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey: dismissed, with no costs, the writ petition of Smt. Leenashree Tiwari (defendant No. 1) against the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the 4th Additional Judge to First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 97A/2023, whereby her application under Section 151 CPC for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses was rejected. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) had sued for declaration of title and permanent injunction over survey No. 252/3, admeasuring 0.364 hectare, Village Pandhi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, claiming purchase through a registered sale-deed dated 11.02.1992 from Rameshwar Puri Goswami. Defendant No. 1 had refused to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses while their evidence was recorded, pleading that an agreement existed and settlement was being explored with respondent No. 2; after the talks failed she sought leave to cross-examine. The Court held that a party who knowingly declines cross-examination when evidence is led cannot be permitted to cross-examine those witnesses at a later stage, and found no ground to interfere with the trial Court's order.

1

2025:CGHC:7186

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP227 No. 135 of 2025

Smt. Leenashree Tiwari W/o Shri Sitakant Tiwari Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Khaira, P.O. Pandhi, Thana Seepath, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --(Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s)

versus

Dinesh S/o Late Shri Harchand Aged About 45 Years Caste Adholiya, R/o Village Pandhi, Tahsil Seepath, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- (Plaintiff)

Bharatpuri Goswami, S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dhuri, Aged About 64 Years Caste Goswami, R/o Village, Thana Seepath, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- (Defendant No. 2)

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

10.02.2025

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 04.01.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 97A/2023, by 4 th Additional Judge to First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over survey No. 252/3 admeasuring 0.364 hectare, situated at Village Pandhi Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur on the ground that it was purchased by him from

2

one Rameshwar Puri Goswami through a registered sale-deed on 11.02.1992. The plaintiff examined his witnesses, but defendant No. 1 refused to cross-examine those witnesses. In the application moved under section 151 of CPC, it is pleaded that before the examination of the plaintiff witnesses, an agreement was executed by respondent No. 2 and parties were exploring possibilities of settlement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as there was a possibility of settlement between the parties; the petitioner/defendant No. 1 refused to cross-examine the witnesses. He would further submit that as no compromise could be arrived into between the parties; the petitioner moved an application to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. He would also submit that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting such an application.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose.

Heard.

Admittedly, the petitioner himself refused to cross-examine the witnesses knowing very well the facts of the case. When the plaintiff led evidence, defendant No. 1 ought to have cross-examined those witnesses and if he failed to cross-examine those witnesses, he cannot be permitted to crossexamine those witnesses at a later stage.

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

$iddhant