Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bulaki Ram Shakya vs Ramvaran Singh Tomar on 7 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17003
1 MP-4245-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4245 of 2025
BULAKI RAM SHAKYA
Versus
RAMVARAN SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri S.D. Singh Bhadoriya-
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Rohit Shrivastava - Government Advocate for respondent-State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article
227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11/07/2025 passed
by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhind (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.
173A/2017 whereby Trial Court rejected the application filed by
petitioner/plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC and his right to adduce
further evidence has been closed
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit
for declaration of right and possession and permanent injunction against
defendant/respondent No.1. Defendant No.1/respondent filed written
statement. Thereafter, Trial Court framed the issues and begun the evidence
of plaintiff. On 11/07/2025, plaintiff witness was absent and plaintiff's
counsel filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC for seeking
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17003
2 MP-4245-2025
adjournment due to illness of the plaintiff but the Trial Court found that
plaintiff has already taken ample opportunity, therefore, his right to adduce
further evidence was closed and case was fixed for further defendant
evidence. Therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the
CPC on 28/07/2025 and prayed before the Trial Court that his witness could
not appear before the Trial Court on 11/07/2025 due to illness, so before
beginning of defendant's evidence, evidence of plaintiff witnesses may be
recorded but Trial Court rejected his application on 30/07/2025 on the
ground that plaintiff has already been given ample opportunity to adduce his
evidence.
3 . Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner/plaintiff filed
this petition and submitted that non appearance of petitioner/plaintiff on
11/07/2025 was bonafide looking to the age of petitioner/plaintiff coupled
with fact that he was suffering from Diarrhea, therefore, one opportunity
ought to have been granted to the petitioner/plaintiff but Trial Court
committed error in not granting opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff and his
witness- Sunil Mishra and Bhanu Pratap were present before the Trial Court
on 30/07/2025 but Trial Court refused to record their evidence. Counsel for
petitioner relied on the judgment of Badrilal Vs Chhaganlal, 2001 (II)
MPWN 49, Dhuralal Vs Vishnu & others, 1978, (I) MPWN 313 and
Kurban Hussain Vs Abdul Karim 1957 JLJ, 917 . Therefore,
petitioner/plaintiff prayed that Trial Court be directed for adducing his
evidence before the Trial Court before beginning defendants evidence in the
interest of justice.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17003
3 MP-4245-2025
4. After hearing counsel of parties and on perusal of the documents
adduced by the parties in this petition, in the interest of justice, one single
opportunity for adducing evidence to the plaintiff may be given on payment
of cost before the Trial Court
5. Consequently, the petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.7,000/- to
be paid to the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and one more opportunity is
given to the plaintiff for adducing the evidence and keep present both the
witnesses Suneel Mishra and Bhanu Pratap Sharma before the learned trial
Court for evidence on the date stipulated by the trial Court. No further
adjournment shall be granted in favour of plaintiff's witnesses at any cost.
6 . With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Prachi
