Order :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pali (“the learned Trial Court”) whereby application filed on behalf of the petitioner–plaintiff under Sections 138 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was rejected. By the said application, the petitioner–plaintiff sought permission to confront the defendants’ witnesses with respect to the signatures affixed on a document while concealing the entire text of the document in question.

Petitioner has also challenged order dated 14.11.2025 passed by learned trial Court whereby application of similar nature filed by petitioner-plaintiff was rejected and his right to cross-examine the witnesses was closed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to present writ petition are that, the petitioner-plainitff filed a suit for declaration, partition and injunction against defendants in connection with property known as Marudhar Hotel, NH – 14, Pali-Sumerpur Road, Pali. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 14 are successors of late Hiralal Ji and having share in the joint Hindu Undivided Family. Further, that late Hiralal Ji has acquired various properties out of the funds from family business carried out jointly by family members and the property in question i.e. Marudhar Hotel was also a property of joint Hindu family unit.

2.1 It was further stated that although a family settlement was arrived at between parties on 23.06.1988, however, defendants have decided to sale the property in question while bypassing the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff. Same has given rise to cause of action to petitioner-plaintiff to prefer the present suit.

2.2 Defendant Nos.1 to 10 contested the suit by way of filing written statement denying averments of the plaint stating therein that alleged family settlement document dated 23.06.1988 is a forged document and also denied fact that property in question is a property of joint Hindu family unit.

2.3 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 20.04.2006, and an additional issue was framed on 02.08.2006. Plaintiff’s evidence has already been concluded.

2.4 At the stage of examination of defendant No. 1, an application under Sections 138 and 145 of the Act was filed, stating therein that proof of signatures on the document is a necessary issue and, therefore, plaintiff is legally entitled to confront the witnesses with regard to the signatures of defendants on the documents for the purpose of testing witness’s authenticity in respect of the signatures. By way of the said application, a prayer was made that objection raised by defendants’ counsel to confront the witnesses only with regard to the signatures, while hiding entire text of the document, be disallowed.

2.5 Said application was opposed by defendants by filing reply, stating therein that petitioner has misconstrued the provisions of law and that permission to confront the witnesses with regard to the signatures while concealing the original document, cannot be granted.

2.6 Learned trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 dismissed said application and accepted defendants’ objection observing that while confronting witness with a document, entire document must be shown and that concealing the text of the document while displaying only the signatures is not a practice permissible in the eye of law.

2.7 Thereafter, petitioner again filed an application on 17.10.2025 stating therein that proof of signature whether through persons familiar to them, succ