In the High Court of Chhattisgarhl Bilasgur WP (227) — g\§ é / 2010 Petitioner / M/s. Sanjay Agrawal, Plaintiff Thro’ Sanjay Agrawal, 48 Yrs., S/ 0 Shri Ramautaar Agrawal, 9, South Avenue, \Chaubey Colony, Raipur Versus Respondents / Defendants /1. State _ of Chhattisgarh, thro’ Collector, Raipur, COllector Office, Raipur Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Balauda Bazaar, Raipur /3. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Ghore Parisar, Civil Line, Raipur, Teh. & Distt. Raipur Petition Under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India 1. Particulars 0i the Petitioner: - m As Above. '¢“9,:¢g\ \ E ,i / . ' / \, ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Ho’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mish Writ Petition 1227) No.4156 of 2010 Present: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. State/respondents Shri Ajay Dwivedi, No.1 and Deputy 2 on advance Government notice. Advocate ‘ for the Writ Petition under Article 22? of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER‘ (Passed on 5m August, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. By the order impugned in this petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the trial Court has rejected the plaintiff’s prayer for grant of an opportunity to submit evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that plaintiffis suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed on or about 15-12- ground to close plaintiff’s right to lead evidence on the date when the n ra Petitioner M/s Sanjay Agrawai versus Resgondents State of Chhattisgarh others . xj {Ei' Court closed the right. More particularly, since, on previous occasions, adjournments were allowed by the Court for just and sumcient reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance on Radhelal and others vs. Padumlal and others, 2008 (3) MPHT 65 (CG). ,4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 on advance notice has argued that the learned trial Court. has assigned reasons for not allowing further opportunity to the plaintiff to produce evidence and thUs there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court. 5. ln State Bank of India vs. Chandra Govindji (KM.), (2000) 8 SCC 532, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 7 thus: “7. In ascertaining whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forward his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournment. if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our View, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter." l l l In the opinion of this Court. the fact that the plaintiff had earlier l sought time to produce evidence has weighed with the trial Court while refusing to grant opportunity to produce evidence or to close his \evidence on 25-6-2010. No other reason has been assigned by the . l l l l tria! Court to refuse adjournment or to disallow plaintiff’s request for giving one opportunity to lead evidence. The trial was fixed for recording evidence for the first time in the month of August, 2009 and thus the trial is not pending for years. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Chandra Govindji (KM.) (supra), this Court is convinced that the plaintiff deserves one opportunity to produce his evidence. 7. In the result, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff is granted one opportunity to produce himself and his other witnesses for examination before the Court below on the next date of hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also directed that the plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs.1 ,OOOI-(Rupees One Thousand) to the defendant No.1/State before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. The writ petition‘is disposed of accordingly. Sd//— ‘ Prashant Kumar Mishra‘ Judge Gopal