Progr‘unme UI‘Iicer Manna Baal vamn nprm; 9+ A DO hmkmw fiEIH bUUR'I‘ Ul" LHrlATI 133hARi’i BihAbPUK ‘W. F. £22'n N0. 3725 of Zt'mg Eg’l‘i'i‘lamERi Smt. Preltv Knolmar Ghakmyaar. 42 PLAEETIFE yearg, “Viv A. Khskhm‘, Distt J Lvux Versus State of Cilhatu‘saaxh— BV Chief SW‘ JaAJ , X‘v’Lm+*alaya, Rwpur Mnnfmuaya’ R5292“ K d Ixushwana bpectcu §ecretar3 M91111 Baal Wk“ Vihag, Mcumdmyd, Kmpur N FlLMnU UNUELK AK! lLLh: £A7 OF '1 HIE: QTI'I‘v'mnu nw tmnr 1 2 §ecretarv, Manna baai Vlkas Vmhag S1111 Raja Shanna, counsel ior me penuoner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govemment Advocaw for the Stataj respondents No. l 65 2. None for respondent No.3. nRAI nRnFR .. .- A‘ run-u Hmu 1.4uuo; $3j71§1§115lwlé§ mm‘iA, d. Heard. The petitioner] plajnmj‘ has challenged the Vahcllty of omers dated 5.4.2008 and 85,2008, passed by the 10m Additional District Judge, Raipur in (sis. N‘o. 3A/ZUU5, whereby and whereunder, me plajnmfs rights to cross examine the defendants; witnesses on, production 01‘ their aiiidavit has been. closed by the trial Court al‘rer refusmg two applications Iiled under Order 17, Rule l ofthe Code of Civil Procedure on above 2 dates. A perusal of the record would show that after completion ot the plainrjlt’s ev1dence two wrtnesses ol the derendants namelv — bmt Lhnstma b Lal and K d hushwana had med thelr alrrdaVIts Irom the detendants s1de 1n support 01 defence. On 5.4.2008; Smt. Christina S. Lal was present in the trial Court as the defendants“ itness. On that date, an applic ation under Order 1‘7, l<ule liaCPC was moved by the counsel for the plaintiti‘and a time was prayed 2r U ‘ A @ V P (2‘27) No 372512008 for crOSs—exammau‘oa 01 Hm wimess, but the Court mfused to grant timé and ngh‘i of ms plaintiff to cross examine this witness was closed. lhereaiter on 8 2008 deiendants wrmess namciv— Rd. Kushwaha was present for ms cross—examination but, on mat date a130, an application under Order l7, Rule 1 CFC was med by the counsel for the plaintiii' and the said application was also d1smissed and the right to cross examine this wmaess was also Closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that after closing the evidence ofdefendants‘ side, now the matter has been fixed for Iinal hearing on 16.7.2008. About merits of the petition, he submits that the trial Court erred in law in not granting opportunities to the plaintjtf to cross examine the witnesses present on respective dates by allowing the applications tiled under Order 17, Rule 1 CFC, as the grounds taken for such reiecttons are not iustifiecl. He takes Ine to the contents 01‘ the orders dated 5.4.2008 8r. 8.5.2008. A perusal of the order dated 5.4.2008 would show that the altidavn of Witness— omt Lnnsnna Lal was handed over to the counsel for the plaintilf just on the last date of hearing prior to 5.4.2008 and time was granted for 5.4.2008 for cross—exammation of this witness, but adjournment was sought on the ground that the plaintitf Could not appear personally on that date. The submission ot counsel 101‘ the plaintiff was that for eti'ectively cross—examination of the witne as, presence of the plaintiff was necessary and therefore, time was prayed. The Court has observed that it was the responsibility of the counsel to prepare the case and to cross examine the witnesses and Since the counsel tailed to do so, the adjournment was refused. b0 tar as retusal oi adtournment on 8 o z008 is concerned the Court has observed that on that date also the plaintnl could not appear, as she was posted as Mahila Baal Vikas AdlnKan, Jashpur Nagar and on the said date, a Jan Adalat. was being convened bv the Chairman of Rajya Manila Aayog at dashpur. ’l‘he Court did not allow the prayer ot'adjournment on this ground and g. I ‘,\ \ @ W.F’. (227) No.3725l'26368 by rejecting the prayer of adjoumment, right 01' The plamtji’f for CI‘OSS €Xam111at‘lOIl WaS CIOSEd. Principally, the View taken by the Court does not appoar to be erroneous, when it says that a counsel should be preparedfor evidence and cross—examination when he 1s engaged by the party on his] her behalf. The Court was right 1n taking this View that 1'1" the plaintjifwas not able to appear in the Court on the date/dates, iixeci for cross-exammation of the witnesses OI" other side, he] she would have duly instructed the counsel appearing on his/her behaii‘and the counsel wouid. have taken all necessaiy instructions for cross—examination of The witnesses and there is no reason with the counsel to take adjournment on the ground that the plaintiff was not present on the date of evidence. But, at the same time, the Court should not have lost Sight of that by taking such a View, where there does not appear to be an apparent Iault on the part of the party, the party may not be rendered to a loss. “The trial Court has also considered the previous conduct ol‘ the plainhn' and then had closed the lights by retusing the prayer for adiournment under Order 1‘7, Rule 1 CFC. The Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that the cause shown by the party for taking adjournment tor a particular day is to be cons1dered and the court would not have gone into the circumstances prevailing beyond the date, on which, adjournment was being sought. It the Court is satisiied that a sutiicient cause is shown for the date, on which, the adjournment is sought, it has to be granted in accordance with law. (State Bgnk ofimiia Vs. Chandra Gavindii {KMJ. (200w 8 §uwgremegggurt Cases 532). in View of the above, it is clear that while refusing adjouinment tor the Iirst time after tiling, the attidavits by the witnesses and their appearance in the Court, the trial Court completely lost sight of the above principles, which has caused injushce‘to the plaintut‘. Therefore, with a view to give complete justice to the parties, l deem it proper to set aside these orders, givmg an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross examine these two witnesses. r 4 W.P.J;227l No.3725l2lm8 Accordingly, the impugxmcl orders are set asmte. 1t is directed that the trial Court shall now 1ix a date for cross— exammation of above two witnesses and on that date, the plamtiii’ 01‘ her counsel shall be awarded last opportunity to cross examine them and 11 theV fail to cross-examme the witnesses on the said date, then the opportunity 01' the plaintm' 1’01“ cross-examination snail stand closed. ’l'he tnal Court shaJl 11x a date w1th the consent ol‘the parties, which shall not be a date ol more than 15 davs. For the inconvenience caused to the witnesses, the plaintiff shall paV a cost of Rs. 1000/ — to the deiendants, which shall be paid] deposned prior to cross—examination of these witnesses. With the above directions, the petition is allowed. It is made clear that the order has been passed eX—parte, as respondent No.3 is not represented. ltrespondent No.3 feels any grievance against the order passed by this Court, he may. approach to this Court in appropriate forum for necessary orders in this regard. Certilied copy today, it‘demandedu‘ Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sunlm