IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR ..) ‘ go O WRIT PETITION 27 o. . o '21 (2) N f 01 Shyam Agrawal (Gar), S o. .D .Agrawa, aged about 5 es, upta Textile Syam Sari, 75, New Cloth arke, Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) PETITIOER t Dam ohm“ VERSUS ,' . v Rajkumar Agrawal, aged about 3 /. Sagarmal grawal, resident of Ravnagar, aipur C.G RESPONDENT PMK'HH? ) 4 So y ~ A i R (.). ONSTITUTION OF INDI (CG / g / B l 2 yar G / h Mt N L ears, C A. i cf HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition_(227) No. 1800 of2011 (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Alok Nigam, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL ORDER. (Passed on 27.06.201 1) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally even in absence ofretum, Instant petition calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.09.2010, pas5ed by the Xth Addl; District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 26-A/09, whereby the trial court has rejected the petitioner’s/defendant’s application for grant of adjournment and closed his right to lead evidence. 3. Brief facts of the case are that .: respondent/plaintiff closed his evidence on 04.08.10 and thereafter the matter was fixed for petitioner’s/defendant’s evidence on 01.09.2010. On petitioner’s prayer on 01.09.2010, the matter was fixed on 10.09.2010. ' On that date petitioner sOught adjournment on the ground that due to Teeja festival his witness could not come but the prayer for adjournment {Wt '9 ‘ PETITIONER : Shyam Agrawal (Garg) Defendant Versus RESPONDENT : Rajkumar Agrawal Plaintiif was rejected and petitioner’s opportunity to lead evidence was closed by the trial court Vide impugned order. 4. Shn' Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: due to Teeja festival petitioner’s witness could not remain present in the court and at least one more opportunity should have been aEorded by the trial court to the petitioner to lead evidence. 5. On the other hand, Shri Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court has rightly closed petitioner’s opportunity to lead evidence and there is no illegality committed by the trial court warranting interference of this court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 7. Plaintiff closed his evidence only on 04.08.2010 and thereafter on 01.09.2010 & 10.09.2010 the matter was fixed for defendant’s evidence, therefore, the trial court should have granted at least one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence, inasmuch as, right to lead evidence is a valuable right. Other party can be compensated by imposing cost, therefore, order passed by the trial court rejecting petitioner’s application for adjournment is not in accordance with law. 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the considered opinion of f i \\\ this court, ground has been made out for interference of this court v/ under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. Accordingly the order impugned dated 10.09.2010, being not sustainable in law deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs payable to the plaintiff and thereafter shall proceed with the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. It is expected that the trial court shall decide the suit expeditiously. 9. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. re»a, Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge x v- tam{