,C;!'i'-F^^. fe:^ :p- *s<' •»? HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, i W.P.(C1 No.969/2008 PETITIONERS/ 1 Radhelal, S/o Jagmohan, aged about PLAINTIFFS 65 years- 2 Mst. Indumati, aged about 85 years, Widow of Shyamlal 3 Gurushai^n, S/o Shyamlal, aged about 50 years. 4 Maheshwar, S/o Shyainlal, aged about 45 years, 5 Paleshwar, S/o Shyamlal, a%ed about 40 years 6 Pyare]al, S/o Jagmohaa, aged about 60 years. AU fhe petitioners are belong to Caste Gabel, Occupatton : Cultivation, R/o Village Badepadarmudar, TahsU Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) RESPOMDENTS Versus 1 Padujalal, S/o Shivprasad, aged about 30 years. 2 Kholbaliara, S/o Shivprasad, aged about 45 years. 3 Samm.elal, S/o Shivprasad, aged about 38 years. 4 Jawahar, S/o Shivprasad, aged about 33 years. 5 Sagunlat, S/o Shivprasad, aged about 27 yeais. 6 Junabai, Widow of Shivprasad, aged about 70 years. AU fhe petitioners are belong to caste Sataanai, R/o vSlage Badepadannudar, Tahsil Sakd, District Jaajgir-Cham.pa (C.G.,) i^ <ss" y s ':%^1''./ W.P.fCTNo. 969/2008 7 State of Chhatisgarh, Through the CoUector, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITIOB UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTIOS OF INDIA Appearance: .c^ Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for fhe State. ORAL ORDBR (15.02.20081 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. The petitioners/plamtiffs have filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of fhe order dated 24.01.2008 passed by CivU Judge Class-I, Sakti in CivflSuitNo.220-A/2002. It appears that by the said orier, fhe trial Court has closed fhe rights ofthe plamtifFs to adduce fheir evidence after rejecting fheir appUcation filed uader Oider 17 Rule 1 offhe Code ofCivil Procedure. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners subiuits that fhe niain ground taken by fhe trial Court is that many adjoumments were given to fhe plamttffs to adduce fheir evidence, but since fhey could not produce their witnesses, no further opportunity is to be given to thein, which is not in accordance with law. He subinits fhat ia fact, the trial Court would have seen fhe cause shown by fhe plaiatiffs for taktag adjoumment on a particular day aud it should not have gone into fhe circuinstances prevailing beyond the date on which adjoumment was being sought. He reUed on the decision rendered ia the matter of Stttte Bcmk of India vs. Chandra Gooiiidfi {KM.I (2000) S S.C.C. 532. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioners at lengfh and have also perused the records offhe writ petition, A perusal of fhe impugned order would show fhat ftiis inatter was posted for plaintiffs' evidence for so inany times and ou 5 ..<<3?%. /^ ^ W.P.rClNo. 969/2008 l! occasions i.e. 25/2/2005, 8/2/2006, 8/3/2006, 4/4/2006 and II/10/2006, fhe witaesses offhe plamtiifs were present, but fheir evidence could not be recorded on fhese dates either on account of adjoununents beiug sought by the detendents or on accouat of paucity of ttme wifh the Court. Therefore, it caimot be said that fhe plaintiffs were not interested iu prosecuting fheir case aad they 'c^ were not producing their witaesses before ttie Court, rafher, it appears that fhey had produced their witaesses inaay tiines, but on one ground or the other, their evidence could not be recorded. Moreover, iu the luatter of Stctte Btink of Jndia vs. Chandra Gtwindft jKiW (Supra) in context of Oider 17 Rule l C.P.C., the Apex Coiul iu para 7 held that iu ascertaming whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forward bis case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjouniinent is sought for. The earKer adjoununent, if any, granted would certamly be for reasonable grounds and fhat aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjourmnent is sought for fhe party conceraed has a reasonable ground. The inere fact fhat in the past adjourruaents had been sought for would not be of any inateriality. If the adjoununent had been sought for on flimsy grounds the sacae would have been rejected. In fhe present case, on the date of hearing of fhe case, the petitioner had inoved aa application contending fhat there was soine bereaveinent in fhe family of fhe plaintifFs and on fhe said date, 10th day cereinony was going on, fherefore, the plaiatiffs and fheir witaesses have not appeared in the Court aud on this ground, adjoununentwas sought. In fhe opuiion of tbis Court, if the groiuids raised by the pIaintifFs bave not been held to be factually iucorrect, it was a reasonable aad siif&cient ground for fhc plaintiffs to sought adjoununent froiu fhe trial Court. TIie trial Coitrt cotnmitted error of law ia not awarding an opportuaity to fhe plaintifFs to adduce S! ^' W.P.fCTNo. 969/2008 fheir evidence and ia fhe facts aad circumstauces offhis case, the order of the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Accordiugly, the impugaed order dated 24.01.2008 passed by fhe trial Court is hereby set aside. It is directed that the trial Court shaB Qx a new date for plamtiffs' evidence aad on fhat date, ffae plaiatiffs shaU exainine aU their witnesses and no further adjoununeut sbaU be graated to thein for adducing fheir evidence. If fhe evidence of fhe plaintiffs is not coinpleted ia one day, it wffl contmue on the subsequent dates also, tffl its coinpletion. Thereafter, the inatter shaU be fixcd for defendants' evidence aud the suit would be decided in accordaace with law. It is directed fhat this order shaU be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- by fhe plamtiffs to the defendants, which shall be paid/deposited by fhem prior to the date of fheu- evidence fbced by fhe tdal Court, failmg which, fhis oider shaU have no force. No order as to cost. — -— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna