[2026:RJ-JP:2612]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1167/2026 Netram @ Baljeet Singh Master Son Of Shri Durgiram, Resident Of Farso (Jheel Bada Ke Pas), Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari W/o Shri Bahadur Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Hathaini, Presently Resident Of Brijnagar, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)

2. Amit @ Kukku Son Of Shri Aajad Singh, Resident Of Behind Old Kachhari, Harijan Basti, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.

3. Sumit Son Of Shri Aajad Singh, Son Of Behind Old Kachhari, Harijan Basti, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshul Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

21/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.12.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC dated 25.11.2025, has been rejected.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit in Examination-in-Chief of four plaintiff’s witness was filed by the plaintiff on 07.11.2025 and the matter was posted on 14.11.2025 for the purpose of cross-examination. On 14.11.2025, since the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the cross- examination could not be done and the matter was posted on

19.11.2025.

3. On 19.11.2025, two of the witnesses, namely, Mithlesh Kumari and Digamber Singh were cross-examined in detail and the counsel for the defendant, thereafter, sought time to cross- examine the other two witnesses on the other next date. However, the learned trial Court without giving any further opportunity closed the cross-examination of the other two witnesses, namely, Bahadur and Puran Singh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants were not causing any delay. He contends that the counsel therein had elaborately cross-examined two of the witnesses and was not delaying the proceedings in any manner.

5. He further submits that even three opportunities were not given to him for completing the cross-examination of all the witnesses and, therefore, prays that the orders dated 04.12.2025 as well as 19.11.2025 may be quashed and set aside.

6. Heard.

7. This Court finds that the four affidavits in Examination-in- Chief of four witnesses were filed by the plaintiff for the first time on 07.11.2025 in a suit which was pending since 2018.

8. Thus, till the year 2025 there was no delay on account of the defendant. The next date, i.e., 14.11.2025, which was posted for the purpose of cross-examination, the Presiding Officer was on leave and thereafter on 19.11.2025 detailed cross-examination of two witnesses was made by the counsel for the petitioner and for the two witnesses that were left out, a request was made to postpone the matter.

9. This Court, on perusal of the record, thus finds that the learned trial Court, without granting proper opportunity to the petitioner have closed the cross-examination of the two of the witnesses of the plaintiff.

10. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to conduct the cross-examination, when the two witnesses are available in the Court, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiff witnesses for the purpose of their cross-examination.

11. If the plaintiffs-respondents are aggrieved in any manner by this order, then they may file an application to recall this order.

12. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

13. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /15