ALOK SIRMOUR vs SMT. LATIKA SIRMOUR

Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.11.05
17:57:55 +0530
1

CGHC010433282026 2026:CGHC:47056
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1405 of 2026
1 - Alok Sirmour S/o Late Bholanath Simour, Aged About 49 Years, R/o C/268, 20,
Smriti Nagar Bhilai, Nehru Nagar, Near Sub-Station, Bhilai, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Smt. Latika Sirmour W/o Alok Sirmour, Aged About 45 Years, R/o C/o Anju
Banchhor Advocate/ Notary, B-13, Behind Rajgharana Restaurant Ravinagar
Pandari Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
:
For Petitioner Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board
05-11-2026
1. Heard.
2. The present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 22-10-2026 passed by the
learned Fourth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur in Case
No.HMA/884/2026 whereby the right to lead evidence of the applicant has
been forfeited and the case has been fixed for non-applicant’s evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
applicant before the learned Family Court where he is prosecuting an
application for grant of divorce from the non-applicant. The said application
was earlier filed at Family Court Durg, however, the same was transferred to
the learned Family Court Raipur by the order dated 30-07-2026 passed by

2
the coordinate Bench of this Court in TPC No.30/2026. The applicant’s case
was fixed on 03-10-2026 for further hearing. On 03-10-2026 the case was
fixed for 22-10-2026 for recording applicant’s evidence, however, due to
some medical ailment the applicant could not appear before the learned
Family Court and he filed an application for adjournment of the proceeding
along with the supporting out patient record dated 21-10-2026 and medical
certificate. The learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the
petitioner and forfeited the right to lead evidence of the applicant and fixed
the case for non-applicant’s evidence. He would further submit that the
applicant was restrained from appearing before the learned Family Court due
to his ill health as he was suffering from high blood pressure and he was
advised to take rest from 21-10-2026 to 24-10-2026. Restricting the applicant
from leading his evidence would prejudice his case and no proper
adjudication would be done in the case on his application. Therefore, one
more opportunity may be granted to the applicant to lead his evidence. He
would further submit that there would be no prejudice to the non-applicant as
she would have every right to cross-examine the applicant’s evidence,
therefore, the applicant may be permitted to lead his evidence.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.
5. From the order dated 30-07-2026 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court
in TPC No.30/2026 it transpires that the present case has been transferred
from Family Court Durg to Family Court Raipur with direction that the
proceeding of the case should be concluded within a further period of four
months from the date of receipt of the record. Vide order dated 03-10-2026
Annexure-P/1, it transpires that the learned Family Court fixed the case for
applicant’s evidence on 22-10-2026 and directed the applicant to remain
present for recording his evidence. However, on 22-10-2026 an application
was made by the applicant for adjournment of the proceeding on the ground

3
that he is suffering from high blood pressure and advised by the doctor to
take rest. Along with the application he filed the medical document of out
patient record dated 21-10-2026 and medical certificate issued by his doctor
of Govt. Hospital Supela. Though, the applicant has alleged to be suffered
from high blood pressure, however the case may be adjourned instead of
forfeiting the right of the applicant to lead evidence, if his application is prima
facie supported by the medical document, and on the first occasion when the
case was fixed on 22-10-2026 for recording his evidence. From the
documents annexed with the petition it cannot be said that he was negligent
in prosecuting his case as there is only a single default in which he could not
appear for recording his evidence and filed his application for adjournment of
the proceeding for another day supported by the medical documents.
6. It is well settled that the right of a party to lead evidence is an important facet
of the right to effectively prosecute or defend a civil proceeding, and such
right ought not to be denied in a manner which deprives a party of an
opportunity to establish its case on merits, unless the conduct of such party
warrants such a consequence. Though the Court has ample power to
regulate its proceedings and decline unnecessary adjournments, the power
to forfeit the right to lead evidence must be exercised cautiously and
judiciously, keeping in view the ultimate object of adjudication on merits. In
the present case, it is evident from the documents placed on record that the
petitioner could not appear before the learned Family Court on 22-10-2026
on account of his medical condition, i.e., high blood pressure, and had duly
supported his application for adjournment by placing on record the out
patient record dated 21-10-2026 and the medical certificate issued by the
concerned doctor. Further, it is apparent that the petitioner had not
repeatedly sought adjournments for recording his evidence and the default in
question appears to be a solitary instance occasioned by his ill health. In

4
such circumstances, forfeiture of his right to lead evidence would cause
serious prejudice to his case and substantially impair his opportunity to
establish the grounds pleaded in his application for divorce. Therefore,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that the ends of justice would be served by affording the
petitioner one more opportunity to lead his evidence, subject to payment of
appropriate cost and the condition that no further opportunity shall be granted
to him for the said purpose.
7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by
the learned trial Court forfeiting the right to lead evidence by the applicant
suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error which requires interference. The
impugned order is therefore set aside and the applicant/petitioner is
permitted to lead evidence before the learned Family Court subject to
payment of the cost of Rs.3000/- payable to the non-applicant before the
Family Court. The petitioner/applicant is directed to appear before the
concerned Family Court on the next date fixed before it, i.e., 12-11-2026 for
recording his evidence and shall not take any adjournment for his evidence.
The learned Family Court concerned is further directed to proceed in
accordance with law with the case on its own merits.
8. The present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
( Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Aadil