[2025:RJ-JD:54578]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23636/2025

Devi Singh Rajpurohit S/o Late Shri Kan Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About 81 Years, Resident Of 629, Grove Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey (U.s.a) 07450 Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ghanshyam Singh Rajpurohit Son Of Shri Mohan Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 18, 2 Nd B Road,

Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri Pratap Singh Rajpurohit S/o Late Shri Kan Singh

Rajpurohit, Resident Of House No. 543, 8Th B Road,

Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

2. Shri Bhairoon Singh Rajpurohit S/o Late Shri Kan Singh

Rajpurohit, Resident Of 37, Broad Street, Pompton Lakes,

New Jersey (U.s.a) 07442

3. Shri Mukan Singh Rajpurohit S/o Late Shri Kan Singh

Rajpurohit, Resident Of H. No. 4/119, Mahaveer Enclave,

Dabri, Palam Road, New Delhi.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain, for respondent No.1

Mr. Bharat Maheshwari with

Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for

respondent No.2

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

17/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition a challenge has been led to the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolian, by which the opportunity of the petitioner-defendant for leading

evidence has been closed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for partition has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the petitioner and other defendants before the Court below. The petitioner, who is 82 years old is presently residing at New Jersey in the USA and he is contesting this matter through his power of attorney holder.

3. Counsel submits that considering the fact that petitioner is residing at the USA, coupled with his old advanced age, so also the fact that he could not appear in person, he sought permission from this Court for deposition of his statements through Video Conferencing. Counsel further submits that the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.241/2024 on 25.04.2025. Thereafter, the statements of the petitioner were submitted by post in English language against which, objection was raised by the other side. Subsequently, Hindi Version of the statement was sent, and again an objection was taken by the other side that the pages of the statement had not been signed by the petitioner and hence, again a fresh copy of the petitioner’s statement, containing his signatures on each page, was submitted by the petitioner. But inspite of the above, the order impugned has been passed.

4. Counsel submits that the petitioner’s right, title and interest in the property in question are involved in the matter, therefore, one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner, subject to payment of cost to the other side.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that inspite of availing fourteen opportunities, the petitioner failed to lead evidence and hence, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the order impugned. The order impugned passed by the Court below is just and proper, which does not require any interference by this Court and the petition is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for partition has been submitted by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the petitioner as well as the other defendants i.e. respondents No.2 & 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are super senior citizens and both are residing at New Jersey in the USA and both of them are claiming their respective rights in the subject property. This fact is also not in dispute that several opportunities have been granted to the petitioner for leading evidence but for one