AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board
The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 10.08.2026 passed by VIth Additional Judge to the court of Ist Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur in Civil Suit No.76-A/2020 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC for adjournment of the proceeding was rejected and plaintiff’s right to lead evidence has been forfeited.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are plaintiffs before the trial court where they are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to their ancestral property. As property rights were involved in the suit, it was required to be adjudicated on merits. During pendency of the suit, the issues have been framed and case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 12.02.2026, however, due to ailment of plaintiff No.1, who was taking care of the case on behalf of other plaintiffs on account of they being ladies, he could not appear before the court and to give his evidence and thereafter the case was adjourned. However, on 07.04.2026, 04.05.2026 and 18.06.2026 coincidentally the petitioner No.1 suffered from various ailment and on 12.06.2026 he got his left leg fractured on falling floor. He was being treated and advised for bed rest. Under such circumstances he could not appear before the trial court for recording of his evidence and made application on 10.08.2026 before the trial court for adjournment of the proceeding, however, on the same day i.e. on 10.08.2026 his application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC has been rejected and his right to lead evidence has been forfeited. He would further submit that forfeiting right to lead evidence would seriously prejudice his right and they would be defeated in the suit. Instead of granting time to the petitioners, forfeiting the right to lead evidence would adversely affect the ultimate outcome of the suit. Since property rights of petitioners are involved in the suit, it is to be adjudicated on merits. He would further submit that the petitioners are praying for one opportunity to produce their witnesses and no prejudice is being caused to other side as defendant's evidence are not yet started. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioners may be permitted to produce evidence before the trial court.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
From perusal of the order impugned, it transpires that during pendency of suit, issues were framed and case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 12.02.2026, however, due to ailment of plaintiff No.1 (who was authorized to take care of case by all other plaintiff’s) he could not appear before the court to lead evidence and thereafter the case was adjourned. However, on 07.04.2026, 04.05.2026 and 18.06.2026 coincidentally the petitioner No.1 suffered from various ailment and ultimately on 12.06.2026 he fell on floor in the house and got fractured his left leg and thereafter when they again made an application for adjournment of the proceeding, the said application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC was rejected on 10.08.2026 and his right to lead evidence was forfeited.
Though, the plaintiff was provided sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, but considering the grounds for adjournment sought for i.e. on account of his ailment on various dates and falling on the floor and having fractured his left leg, the trial Court ought to have allowed their application and should have granted atleast one opportunity to lead evidence.
Be that as it may, since the defendant’s evidence has not been started yet and plaintiff wants to lead evidence and also considering the fact that he made his application for adjournment of the proceeding which has been rejected by the trial Court, it can not be said that the plaintiff was negligent in prosecuting his suit. He could not appear before the court on account of his illness and thereafter he got his left leg fractured and as such he sought adjournment. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that one opportunity should be granted to the plaintiffs to lead evidence before the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.08.2026 is set aside.
The Trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff to examine himself and his witnesses before the learned trial Court, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- which is payable to the defendants before the learned trial Court. The trial Court shall fix a date for evidence of the plaintiff and shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to him. The defendants are having right to cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses.
With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed.