[2026:RJ-JP:2672]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10338/2025 Babulal Gurjar S/o Shri Jhuntharam, Aged About 55 Years, R/o- Dhani Kairoda, Tan Agwadi, Tehsil- Neemkathana, Dist-Sikar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Sura, Son Of Shri Mangu

2. Girdhari, Son Of Shri Mangu

3. Mala, Son Of Shri Mangu

4. Durga, Son Of Shri Mangu 5. Kishan, Son Of Shri Mangu

6. Makhan Son Of Shri Mangu, All Are R/o Dhani Mobsingh Wali, Tan Aagwadi, Tehsil- Neemkathana, District-

Sikar(Raj.)

7. Deputy Registrar, Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)

8. Tehsildar, Neemkathana, District Sikar, Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Saini for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

21/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 17.05.2025, whereby in the suit for specific performance of the agreement, the learned trial Court has rejected the plaintiff- petitioner’s application filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for bringing on record the documents, namely, the original agreement and the original compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said documents are the one which have come into existence after the filing of the suit and therefore, could not have been filed along with the suit as required under the provisions of Order VII.

3. He further submits that the documents are necessary as they pertain to the same property and the documents have been entered between the plaintiff and one of the defendants.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, vide the same impugned order, the learned Trial Court permitted the defendants to place additional documents on record but discriminated by not allowing his application.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial Court had rightly rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC as the application has been filed by the plaintiff at the stage of his evidence.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that the documents which are sought to be place on record are the documents which were not in existence at the time of filing of the suit and therefore, they could not have been placed along with the suit.

8. It is also not in dispute that the documents which have been filed were entered between the plaintiff and one of the defendants and not by all the defendants.

9. However, taking of the document on record has been objected only by the defendants who were not a party to the said documents.

10. This Court also finds that the defendants who objected for taking the plaintiff’s document on record have also been permitted to take on record their additional documents.

11. Considering the same, this Court deems it appropriate to quash and set aside the order dated 17.05.2025 to the extent of dismissal of the application dated 11.11.2024 filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.

12. The two documents, namely, the original agreement and the original compromise entered between the plaintiff and the one of the defendant is permitted to be taken on record, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendants who have objected to the application.

13. The defendants would be entitled to file any document in rebuttal to these documents if they are advised to do so.

14. The defendants will have full liberty to cross-examine the witnesses, if any witnesses are produced by the plaintiff to prove these two documents.

15. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

16. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /29