NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 276 of 2024

1. Smt. Savitri Tawre, W/o Late Gyanchand Tawre, Aged About 86 Years, Through The Power Of Attorney Holder Bhushan Tawre, S/o Late Gyanchand Tawre, R/o H No.15/774, Jora Para, Near Bhakt Prahlad Dhaam, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.4).

2. Bhushan Tawre, S/o Late Gyanchand Tawre, Aged About 66 Years, R/o H No.15/774. Jora Para, Near Bhakt Prahlad Dhaam, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.5).

---- Petitioners Versus

1. Suresh Kumar Peshwani, S/o Laxman Das Peshwani, R/o Avni Vihar, Daldal Shivani, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plantiff).

2. Haasan Chand Pal, S/o Neelkanth Pal, R/o Ashok Provision Stores, Jeevan Beema Marg, Bus Stand Pandari, in front of LIG Forest Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1).

3. Smt. Annapurna Pal, W/o Haasan Chand Pal, R/o Ashok Provision Stores, Jeevan Beema Marg, Bus Stand Pandari, in front of LIG Forest Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.2).

4. Nitin Pal, S/o Haasan Chand Pal, R/o Ashok Provision Stores, Jeevan Beema Marg, Bus Stand Pandari, in front of LIG Forest Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.3).

---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order On Board

09.04.2024

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners/defendants No.4 & 5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned 1^st Additional Judge to the Court of 1^st Civil Judge, Class-I Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.224-A/2013 (Suresh Kumar Peshwani Versus Hasaan Chand Pal & Others) to the extent, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the petitioners.

(The parties to this petition shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court).

3. Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land before the learned trial Court against the defendants No.1 to 5, which is pending consideration as Civil Suit No.224-A/2013.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants No.4 & 5 submits that, on 13.12.2023 defendants No.4 & 5 were impleaded in aforesaid civil suit, thereafter they filed written statement, pursuant to which, additional issues have been framed. He would further submit that prior to impleadment of defendants No.4 & 5, deposition of plaintiff’s witnesses had been recorded. Therefore, defendants No.4 & 5 filed the application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for recalling and permit them for cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses, which has been rejected by the trial Court vide Order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure-P/1). It is further submitted that plaintiff/Suresh Kumar Peshwani has enclosed the map of suit land along with his plaint, which also covers the land of defendants No.4 & 5, hence it is necessary for them to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. Therefore, he prayed that impugned order may be set aside and defendants No.4 & 5 may be permitted to cross-

examine the plaintiff’s witnesses by recalling them.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure-P/1)

shows that learned trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC of defendants No.4 & 5 for permitting them to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses on the ground that plaintiff’s witnesses have not stated anything against the defendants No.4 & 5 and subsequent impleadment of party, does not automatically give them a right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses, who have already been examined.

7. Perusal of plaint (Annexure-P/2) shows that pe