MANTORA BAI vs TAMASKAR @ TAMRAKAR PATEL

1

CGHC010092592026 2026:CGHC:46098
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 293 of 2026
1 - Mantora Bai W/o Late Mukund Singh @ Lalaram Patel Aged About 50
Years R/o Village Hedaspur, Post Karesara, Police Station And Tahsil -
Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
2 - Pawan Kumar S/o Late Mukund Singh Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o
Ward No. 4, Punjabipara, Sunder Nagar, Ram Cloth Collection Ram Medical
Store, Raipur Road, Bemetara, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Bemetara
Chhattisgarh
3 - Ramnath S/o Late Mukund Singh Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward
No. 4, Punjabipara, Sunder Nagar, Ram Cloth Collection Ram Medical Store,
Raipur Road, Bemetara, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Bemetara
Chhattisgarh
4 - Durga Bai D/o Mukund Singh, W/o Devraj Singh Lodhi Aged About 28
Years R/o Village Parsuli, P.S. Dhamdha Tahsil - Dhamdha, District - Durg
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Tamaskar @ Tamrakar Patel S/o Khem Singh Patel Aged About 50 Years
R/o Village - Hedaspur, Post - Karesara, Police Station And Tahsil
Thankhamhariya, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh
2 - Nirmala Bai D/o Khem Singh, W/o Taran Singh Aged About 52 Years Patel
Krishi Kendra, R/o Village - Hadgaon (Ghuthmura), Post Office Devarbija,
P.S. And Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
3 - Kumari @ Usha Bai D/o Khem Singh W/o Leelsingh @ Leelaram Lodhi
Aged About 48 Years R/o Khairjhitikala, Police Station - Thankhamhariya,
Tahsil - Thankhamhariya, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh
4 - Rani Bai D/o Khorbahra, W/o Munnuram Lodhi Aged About 55 Years R/o
Village Tura Semeriya, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil - Thankhamhariya, District -
Bemetara Chhattisgarh
5 - Chaunpi Bai @ Purain D/o Khorbahra, W/o Balram Patel Aged About 50
Years R/o Village Hathmudi, Post Office Karesara, Tahsil - Thankhamhariya,
District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

2
6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh (During Pendency Of The Suit, The Plaintiff Khem Singh Patel
Has Been Died, Therefore His Name Has Been Deleted, The Plaintiff
Tamaskar @ Tamrakar Patel Is The Legal Heir Of Late Khem Singh Patel)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 to 5 : None, though served.
For State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
30/10/2026
1. Heard.
2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.02.2026
passed by learned Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge
Senior Division, Saja District Bemetara (C.G.), In Civil Suit No.
01-A/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 140 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 135 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are
the defendant No. 1 to 4 before the learned trial Court where the
respondent No. 1 plaintiff is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title
partition and separate possession and permanent injunction over the
suit properties shown in Schedule-A and B annexed with the plaint. The
petitioners are the contesting defendants and duly contested the claim
of the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court whereas the defendant
Nos. 5 to 8 are supporting the case of the plaintiffs. The defendant
Nos. 1 to 4 have filed their written statement denying the averment

3
made in the plaint whereas the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 have admitted
the claim and plaintiff by their written statement.
4. On the basis of the pleading made by the parties, the learned trial
Court framed issues and proceeded for recording evidence of the
plaintiffs. In the meantime the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the
application under Section 140 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 (Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) on the ground that
since the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are supporting the plaintiffs case,
therefore, they may corss-examine the plaintiffs witnesses first and
then only the defendants may be cross-examined the plaintiffs
witnesses for the reason that there is every possibility to fulfill the gap
which the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 taken out from the evidence of the
plaintiffs. He would further submit that no prejudice is being caused to
the plaintiffs even if the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 may be permitted to
cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses as they are the supporting party
to the plaintiffs. The defendants would be prejudice if the lacuna or
deficiency brought out from the evidence of the plaintiffs by the
defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and in further cross-examination by defendant
Nos. 5 to 8 may fulfill the such lacuna by putting their questions in
cross-examination from them. Therefore, the defendants Nos. 5 to 8
may be permitted to cross-examine first and then only the defendant
Nos. 1 to 4 may cross-examine plaintiffs witnesses. He would also
submit that the learned trial Court has not considered the provisions of
Order 18 Rule 2 of CPC as well as Section 135 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 and Section 140 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application
may be allowed.

4
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1
opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
and would submit that even if the plaintiffs would be cross-examined by
defendant Nos. 1 to 4 first, there would be prejudice to any of the
parties as in the sequence of their array in the cause title of the suit it is
for the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who first cross-examine the witness as
has been provided in Order 18 Rule 2 of CPC and provisions of under
Section 140 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 135 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), therefore, the learned trial Court has
rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners and no merit is
there in their writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. The controversy in the present writ petition between the parties are that
the who will cross-examine the plaintiffs witness first either the
defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who was contesting party or the defendant Nos.
5 to 8 who are supporting the plaintiffs. Right to begin re-evidence and
the sequence of production fo evidence is provided under Order 18 of
CPC. The Order 18 Rule 1 of CPC provided that the plaintiff has the
right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the
plaintiff and contents that either in point of law or on some additional
facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of
the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to
begin." Order 18 Rule 2 of CPC provided that “On the date fixed for
hearing, the party having the right to begin (usually the plaintiff) states
their case and presents evidence (oral and documentary) to support
the issues they are bound to prove”. Section 135 of the Indian

5
Evidence Act, 1872 provided that the order in which witnesses are
produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for
the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and,
in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.
8. From perusal of the plaint filed by the petitioners Annexure P/2 it
transpires that the plaintiffs are claiming partition over the suit property
separate possession and permanent injunction the written statement
filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 reveals that they are contesting the
claim of the plaintiffs by denying the material facts and pleadings of the
plaint whereas the defendant Nos. 5 t 8 have admitted the claim of the
plaintiffs as has been reflected from their written statement Annexure
P/4. It is the apprehension of the defendant No. 1 to 4 that in the
process of recording evidence of the plaintiffs, even if the defendants
would be able to extract certain discrepancies in their favour, that
would be diluted by the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 by cross-examining the
plaintiffs witness as they supporting them in the suit. The apprehension
of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be said to be basis from
the written statement of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 when they were
supporting the plaintiffs, they may cross-examine the plaintiffs witness
first and they only the contesting defendant Nos. 1 to 4 may cross-
examine the plaintiffs witnesses and in which there would be prejudice
cause to any of the parties whereas if the plaintiffs would be cross-
examined by defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the prejudice may cause to them
by further cross-examination of the defendant Nos. 5 to 8.
9. As provided under Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 The
order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be
regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and

6
criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law,
by the discretion of the Court. There is no any provisions prescribed in
the law as to who will the cross-examine the witnesses first. Therefore,
is the for the discretion of the Court to permit the parties to cross-
examine the witnesses in the facts and circumstances of the case if
they form an opinion that any particular should cross-examine the
wintesses first.
10. Since the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are the supporting party of the
plaintiffs, there appears to be no prejudice cause to any of the parties if
they be directed to cross-examine the plaintiffs evidence first and then
only the defendant No. 1 to 4 .
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendant
No. 1 to 4 are able to make out a case to interfere with the order and to
direct the learned trial Court to permit the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 to
cross-examine the plaintiffs witness first and then only the defendant
Nos. 1 to 4.
12. The impugned order is accordingly set aside, the application filed by
the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 Annexure P/5 is allowed and the defendant
Nos. 5 to 8 are directed to cross-examine the plaintiffs witness first and
then only defendant Nos. 1 to 4 shall cross-examine the plaintiffs
witness.
13. With the aforesaid observation the present writ petition is allowed .

Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Alok