Murha Ram Dugga v. Hiraman Nag

Order on Board 09/10/2026 Heard.

¶1Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.08.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Keshkaal, District Kondagaon, in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2023, whereby the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence has been forfeited and the case has been fixed for the defendants' evidence.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. The suit was filed on

11.04.2023 for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction. The issues have been framed, and the case was fixed for recording the plaintiffs' evidence. However, earlier, the plaintiffs could not produce their evidence as some of the parties on either side had died and the applications for substitution of their LRs were pending. The petitioners are agriculturists, and their livelihood depends upon their crops. Due to their limited understanding, they would give priority to their agricultural work and, thereby, could not appear before the learned trial Court for recording their evidence as directed by the learned trial Court. Since, on some occasions, the plaintiffs could not produce their evidence, their right to lead evidence has been closed.

¶3He would further submit that the matter pertains to property rights and partition of the subject property, and forfeiting the plaintiffs' right to lead evidence would prejudice their grievance involved in the present suit. He would also submit that, though on earlier occasions time was granted to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, instead of forfeiting their right, the learned trial Court could have imposed appropriate costs and adjourned the proceedings to avoid any further delay. He would also submit that the defendants' evidence has not yet commenced. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside, and the plaintiffs may be granted one opportunity to record their evidence by imposing appropriate costs.

¶4I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶5From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that the petitioners are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction over the suit property, in which the issues were framed on 18.06.2024. The dispute with respect to the title and partition of the suit property is involved, in which both the parties are claiming their rights. From the impugned order, it transpires that the case was fixed for recording the plaintiffs' evidence from 21.08.2024 and thereafter, on 22.08.2024, 02.05.2025, 16.07.2025, 10.11.2025 and 06.02.2026, time was granted on the request made by the plaintiffs for recording their evidence. The last opportunity was also granted to the plaintiffs for recording their evidence, but they failed to produce their evidence, and ultimately, the learned trial Court forfeited the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence and fixed the case for the defendants' evidence.

¶6In the trial of a civil suit, the right to lead evidence is a substantive right so that the parties may bring their evidence to facilitate the passing of the judgment by the learned trial Court. Mere technicalities may not come in the way of adjudication of the dispute on merits. Although, on earlier occasions, adjournments were granted in favour of the plaintiffs, on 08.08.2026 also, they made an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC, stating that they were engaged in their agricultural work and praying for an adjournment. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Km. Chandra Govindji

(2000) 8 SCC 532, the earlier adjournments could not be a relevant consideration for a subsequent adjournment, as the adjournments on earlier occasions had already been granted after considering the grounds taken for those adjournments.

¶7Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, instead of forfeiting the right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence, they may be granted one opportunity to produce their evidence and prove their case.

¶8Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.08.2026 is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the defendants before the learned trial Court on the next date of hearing. The learned trial Court is directed to fix a date for recording the plaintiffs' evidence and to grant one opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their witnesses and shall proceed in the suit in accordance with law.

¶9It is made clear that the plaintiffs shall not be granted any unnecessary adjournments, subject to any legal impediment. It is expected that the parties will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶10With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok

CGHC010397092026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1315 of 2026 1 - Murha Ram Dugga S/o Sanau Aged About 36 Years R/o Village 2 - Mankooram S/o Late Jagduram Aged About 39 Years R/o Village 3 - Smt. Manbati D/o Jagduram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village 4 - Ramkumar S/o Late Jagduram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village 5 - Kamlesh Kumar S/o Late Jagduram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village 6 - Shyambati D/o Late Jagduram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village 7 - Anjali Dugga D/o Late Jagduram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village 8 - Jagat S/o Devji Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 9 - Sukman S/o Sanau Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 10 - Prasad Dugga S/o Mehtar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village 11 - Ramesh Dugga S/o Mehtar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village 12 - Smt. Siyo Bai W/o Late Dukhuram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village 13 - Ramsingh S/o Late Dukhuram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Date: 2026.10.12 10:25:35 +0530 14 - Rambati D/o Late Dukhuram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village 15 - Shyambati D/o Late Dukhuram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village 16 - Sunita D/o Late Dukhuram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village 17 - Peelesh S/o Late Dukhuram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village 18 - Peeluram S/o Late Dukhuram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village 19 - Aliram S/o Rajman Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 20 - Dayaram S/o Massu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 21 - Bajnath S/o Rupsingh Dugga Aged About 63 Years R/o Village 22 - Vinesh Dugga S/o Late Gadheram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village 23 - Masi Bai W/o Late Gadheram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village 24 - Vinoti Bai D/o Late Gadheram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village 25 - Mangoti D/o Late Gadheram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village 26 - Mahesh Dugga S/o Late Gadheram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village 27 - Tularam S/o Jarha Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 28 - Ghas Su S/o Bahadur Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hiraman Nag S/o Motiram Aged About 80 Years Case Muria R/o Village 2 - Fagnuram S/o Motiram Aged About 68 Years Case Muria R/o Village 3 - Mohan S/o Late Duwaru Aged About 42 Years Case Muria R/o Village 4 - Johan S/o Late Duwaru Aged About 40 Years Case Muria R/o Village 5 - Kankay Bai W/o Late Duwaru Aged About 63 Years Case Muria R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 6 - Manoj S/o Late Pyaralal Aged About 48 Years Case Muria R/o Village 7 - Mohan S/o Keju Aged About 50 Years Case Muria R/o Village 8 - Raju S/o Late Rupsingh Aged About 60 Years Case Muria R/o Village 9 - Bajju S/o Late Rupsingh Aged About 60 Years Case Muria R/o Village 10 - Nanhi S/o Rajman Aged About 52 Years Case Muria R/o Village 11 - Collector, Kondagaon Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 12 - Chintaram S/o Bhinguram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, Tehsil Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) Current Address Central Jail Jagdalpur, Distt- Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.