( .-~.vt§§.{..g #:i .l. H : ( 1 ‘ v o Mk AG IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (227) N0. / 3 4 é / 2009 PETITIONER / Shankarlal Ruprela, Plaintiff S/o Mithumal Ruprela, 62 years,, Occupation—Mozim Tilss Factory, R/o Near Prakash Swimming P001, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Q (U) Ii, VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. Madanlal Kukreja, Defendants S/o late Jeevatram Kukreja, 5O yrs, R/o 1177 Ratanla Nagar, Distt. Kapur (U.P.) Indira Devi Kukrej, D/o late Jeevatram Kukreja, Sushila Devi D/o late Jeevatram Kukreja, 3 Res. No. 2 & through Madanlal Kukreja 1127 Ratanlal Nagar, Knp, Post Kanpur (U.P. aur ) Hasanand Kukreja, S/ 0' late Jeevatram Kukreja, R/o 177 Ratanlal Nagar, Post Kanpur, Distt. Kanur (U.P.) Madmini, D/o late Jeevatram Kukreja, C/o Madanlal Kukreja, l 1'77 Ratanlal Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) Mohd. Nadeem, S/o Mohd. Fahim, R/ Raja Talab Raipur (C.G.) Sta of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector (Nazul), Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Particulars of the Petitioner. x: l n a 1 p o te L‘HGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP @ UR Single Bench: o Hn ’ble Shri Justice §rashant Kuma Writ Petition (227i No.1 346 of 2009 hankariai Rupreia versus Madaniai Kukreja and others Post for 1945-20 10 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mi Judge r Mra ish shra S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.1346 of 2009 Petitioner Shankarlal Ruprela VerSUS Respondents Madanlal Kukreja and others _ Present: Shri PrafuH Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Sharma with Shri Kshitiz Sharrria, counsel forrespondents No.1 to 6. Shri Sanjeev Agrawai, Panei Lawyer for the State/respohdent No.7. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on l3“ March, 2010) The petitioner/plaintiff has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 7-2-2009 (AnneXure P-1) passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has rejected the plaintiff’s application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908‘ and has refused to grant further opportunity to the plaintiff to examine his witnesses and closed/his evidence. 2. The plaintiff has preferred a suit (Annexure P-2)) for declaration that the mutation of the names of defendants No.1 to 5 effected on 2- i 11-2003 as well as the sale-deed executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 be declared null and void. The plaintiff has / ‘also l prayed for grant of permanent injunction. \M .- 2'. 3; The matter was fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence on 7-2-2009. The order-sheet of the said date records that the cross-examination of the plaintiff himself was completed but the other witnesses of the plaintiff were not present. The plaintiff moved an application (Annexure P—3) under Order 17 Rule 1 of theVCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that on account of unavoidable reasons the plaintiff’s witnesses could not appear for their examination, therefore, one opportunity may be granted to produce the witnesses on the next date of hearing. ln the application (Annexure Pg3), it was mentioned that the plaintiff is not keeping well being aged and could not contact the witnesses, therefore, one opportunity may be granted. 4. Learned trial Court rejected the prayer on the ground that several opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiff and on the previous date, cost of Rs.500/- was imposed upon him, therefore, the plaintiff does not deserve any further opportunity to produce his witnesses. 5. On perusal of the application and the impugned order, it appears to this Court that ends of justice demands that the plaintiff should be granted one more opportunity to examine his witnesses. ln Kewal Krishan vs. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs., (2001) 9 SCC 117, faced with similar situation, wherein the plaintiffs evidence was closed by the trial Court, the Hon’ble ‘Supreme Court granted one opportunity to the t plaintiff to lead evidence. , 6. This Court is of the opinion that the parties to the suit should be , granted full opportunity to lead evidence and prove their respective _3._ cases on merits. True it is that the plaintiff was granted several opportunities to lead evidence yet in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan vs. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. (supra), this Cou rt is of the view that ends of justice demands that one more opportunity should be granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence, on payment of cost to defendants No.1 to 6. 7. ln the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned e. The petitioner/plaintiff is directed to produce all his order is set asid witnesses before the trial Court on a date to'be fixed by it and for this The purpose n o further opportunity shall be granted to him. petitioner/plaintiff to pay cost of Rs.1 ,OOOI— to defendants No.1 to 6 to sited‘by him before the trial Court before producing his be depo witnesses. #dff—F' , Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal