[2025:RJ-JD:30160]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12569/2024 Neeraj Garg Father/o Shri Chmanlal, Aged About 43 Years, House No.51, Sector 12/4, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus Virendra Kumar Father/o Shari Chamlal Middha, House No. 158, Durga Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh for Mr. Shreekant Verma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

11/07/2025

1. Petitioner (plaintiffs) herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 (Annex.-6) passed by learned District Judge, Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.89/2018, vide which his application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for summoning of witnesses was rejected.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 28.10.2014, alleging that the defendant-respondent agreed to sell a 100 sq. ft. shop located on Sri Ganganagar Road, Hanumangarh Junction for ₹25,00,000/-, and received an advance of ₹8,00,000/- in the presence of witnesses, Shri Pawan Garg and Shri Sunny Kanda. The agreement was duly notarized, and the original sale deed dated 29.08.2014, through which the defendant had purchased the property from Neelam D/o Shri Chimanlal Middha, was also handed over to the plaintiff. Despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed and ultimately refused on 16.10.2018, stating he intended to sell the shop for a higher price. Consequently, the plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance, possession of Shop No. 278, mesne profits, and an injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or using the property.

3. For ease of reference, English translation (as provided) of the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 is as below:

“1. This order disposes of the application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dated March 22, 2024.

2. In the said application, the applicant/plaintiff states that issues in the present civil suit were framed on November 5, 2019. The plaintiff inadvertently failed to submit the witness list earlier because the witnesses had assured him they would appear to give evidence merely upon his request. The plaintiff's evidence concluded today, with the plaintiff's own statement being completed. When the plaintiff requested the witnesses to appear for testimony on the next hearing date, they refused. To prove the agreement and other documentary evidence, the plaintiff needs to present witnesses. Therefore, a prayer has been made to submit the witness list for it to be taken on record, so that witnesses may be summoned through the court. The applicant/plaintiff has attached a list of 8 witnesses with the application.

3. In response to the said application, the non-applicant/defendant stated that the application was filed with an undue delay of five years after the framing of issues, in contravention of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and with the clear intent to prolong the proceedings. No purpose of seeking witness has been mentioned in the application. Furthermore, no satisfactory or justifiable reason for the delay has been provided. The applicant/plaintiff, through various applications filed in the matter by different means, is attempting to cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings. Therefore, the application submitted by the applicant/plaintiff is liable to be rejected. Affidavits in support of the application and the reply have been filed by the respective parties.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submitted before me that previously, based on the assurances of the witnesses, it was not necessary to submit a list of witnesses in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, when required, the list of witnesses was promptly submitted, and sufficient cause for