HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,_BILASPUR w.P.(UIA 227) No. 5775 of 2009 PETITIONERS 1. Smt. Meena Singh, W/o Harihar Singh, Defendant No. 1 & 2 Aged about 40 years 2. Harihar Singh, S/o Jhuri Singh, Aged about 45 years Both above R/o. Namnakala, Ambikapur, Police Station & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Fulmati Devi, W/o. Bramhadev Plaintiff Mishra. Aged about 50 years, R/o Namnakala, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (co) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) Respondent/defendant no.3 3. Bhagwandin, S/o Bramhadev Mishra, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Namnakala, Ambikapur, Police Station & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Respondent/defendant no.4 (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Appearance : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.2. on advance copy. ORDER 407.10.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. r Heard. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.8.2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 184-A/09 by the lllrd Civil Judge, Class-ll, Ambikapur, whereby, right to adduce their evidence has been closed, defendants 1 & 2 have filed this writ petition. / Mr. Mano] Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioners, argues that after closing of the plaintiff’s evidence, the matter was fixed for hearing on different applications and ultimately, after 1 or 2 adjournments for adducing defendants’ evidence, when the time was again sought on 17.8.2009, it was l i 2 W.P.(U/A 227) N0. 5775 of 2009 refused and the right of defendants was closed‘. He further argues that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, a last opportunity may be granted to the defendants so that their rights may not be jeopardized. A perusal of the order—sheets would show that after closing of the plaintiff’s evidence on 11.9.2007, the matter was fixed on different dates for defendants’ evidence. However, on 16.9.2008 some application was filed and from 16.9.2008 to 10.7.2009, the time was consumed for other proceedings and thereafter on 21.7.2009 the matter was again fixed for defendants’ evidence on 17.8.2009 and then on 17.8.2009 the impugned order was passed Though it is clear that a long time has been consumed in all this. but in the opinion of this Court, it would not be lawful to close the right of the defendants to adduce evidence on this account. With a view to give complete justice to the parties, i am of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the defendants to adduce their evidence. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.8.2009 is set aside and it is directed that after production of the certified copy of this order, the trial Court shall fix a date for defendants’ evidence within a period of one month and on that date defendants shall examine all witnesses. lf the examination is not completed by that date, it shall continue on the subsequent dates and then the matter shall be decided in accordance with law. This order is subject to payment of Rs.1 ,000/— as cost by the petitioners/defendants which they shall pay to the plaintiff/counsel for the plaintiff on the date of production of the order for giving opportunity to adduce their evidence. lf the cost is refused by the counsel for the plaintiff, it shall be deposited in CCD, which shall be payable to the plaintiff/counsel for the plaintiff in accordance with/law. lt is made clear that this order is passed ex—parte, therefore, if any party feels aggrieved with the order, they shall be at liberty to come to this Court with appropriate application which shall be decided in accordance with law. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti .