[2023:RJ-JD:39590]

(1 of 6)

[CW-9088/2023]

[2023:RJ-JD:39590]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9088/2023

Mssrs Alfavision Overseas India Ltd., Indore, Through Its

Managing Director And Authorized Signatory Shri Vishnu Goyal

S/o Shri Gheesa Lal Goyal Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of 81,

Janki Nagar (Main), Indore (M.p.)

----Petitioner

Versus

Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Suresh Soni, B/c Soni, Resident Of At

Present Near State Bank Of India, Nagoriyon Ki Pole, Chhoti

Sadri, District Pratapgarh

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9052/2023

Mssrs Alfavision Overseas India Ltd., Indore Through Its

Managing Director And Authorized Signatory Shri Vishnu Goyal

S/o Shri Gheesa Lal Goyal Aged About 578 Years, Resident Of -

81, Janki Nagar (Main), Indore (M.p).

----Petitioner

Versus

Rajendra Nabaria S/o Shri Mishri Lal, B/c Jain, Resident Of -

Sohan Ghati, Tehsil Nimbahera, District - Chittorgarh.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Abhinav Jain

For Respondent(s)

:

---

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order

20/11/2023

Vide this common order, above two cases are being disposed

of, wherein, the impugned orders of similar nature are under

challenge. Since facts are analogous and issues raised therein are

common, for brevity, recitals are taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 9088/2023.

[2023:RJ-JD:39590]

(2 of 6)

[CW-9088/2023]

2.

The petitioner has assailed

two

orders, both dated

31.05.2023 (Annexure. 7) passed by learned Additional District

Judge No. 2, Nimbahera, whereby, two applications in two

separate suits filed by petitioner-defendant under Order 26 Rule

4(1)(A) read with Section 151 CPC and Order 16 Rule 19 CPC

have been dismissed.

3.

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are:

3.1

The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money

before the learned trial Court. The petitioner appeared upon

service of summons and filed written statement denying the

averments made in the plaint.

3.2

It is averred in the petition herein that the respondent is a

politically influential person. That apart, there is an apparent

threat to the life of the petitioner if the petitioner travels to

Nimbahera. Therefore, the petitioner sought indulgence of the

court seeking adequate security for his travel to Nimbahera. The

court directed the Superintendent Police to provide armed police

officials available for his travel from Indore to Nimbahera.

3.3

The matter was listed on 07.02.2023 for the purpose of

recording the evidence of the petitioner's witnesses and on an

application for taking certain documents on record. However, the

trial court, closed the evidence of the petitioner.

3.4

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26

Rule 4(1)(a) read with Section 151 CPC and Order 16 Rule 19 CPC

for recording the evidence of the petitioner either through a

Commission or through video conferencing, citing his old age,

[2023:RJ-JD:39590]

(3 of 6)

[CW-9088/2023]

medical ailments, and the fact that he resides 300 kilometers

away from Nimbahera.

3.5

Learned trial Court, vide order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure.

7), dismissed the application of the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned

trial court has wrongly rejected the applications of the petitioner

seeking the appointment of a Commission for recording the

evidence of the petitioner or by way of video conferencing. He

contends that the court below itself had found that there is threat

to the life of petitioner, and it would have been prudent for the

Court below to record the testimony of the petitioner through a

Commission. He further argues that the petitioner is suffering

from various medical ailments, and his health does not allow him

to travel all the way from Indore to Nimbahera. He, therefore,

prays for setting aside the impugned order.

5.

Given th