[2025:RJ-JP:50715]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19239/2025

1. Praveen Kumar S/o Ramveer Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. C 61, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

2. Ramveer Singh S/o Late Pyarelal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. C 61, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. M/s Orbit Solar System, Through Proprietor Devendra, R/

o G 11, Amrapali Plaza, E 2, Amrapali Circle Vaishali Na- gar Jaipur 302021. Godown Address- 62 House Number 97, Bhoora Ji Vihar, Ganpatpura Chak 2 Mangyawas, Jaipur 302020.

2. Devendra S/o Sardar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Number A 1406, Mangal Grand Residency, Sirsi Police Station, Bhankrota, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Angad Haksar For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

16/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 114 read with Order 47 of CPC, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a defendant in a summary suit. Vide order dated 03.09.2025, the petitioner’s application for leave to defend was allowed, subject to the condition of depositing a demand draft of ₹5 lakhs in the Court. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 03.09.2025; however, a miscellaneous application was filed before the Trial Court contending that the impugned order was ambiguous as it did not specify which defendant was required to deposit the amount and in what proportion. Therefore, clarification of the order dated 03.09.2025 was sought.

3. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 27.11.2025, clarified that by the next date of hearing, both defendants were required to deposit ₹2.5 lakhs each. It was further ordered that in the event of non-deposit of ₹2.5 lakhs by either defendant, the right to defend would stand closed.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners herein preferred a review application against the order dated 27.11.2025. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 29.11.2025, dismissed the review application and upheld the order dated 27.11.2025.

5. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the Trial Court, vide order dated 29.11.2025, has erroneously imposed a condition directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which is unsustainable. He further submitted that the petitioner has raised substantial, bona fide, and triable grounds in defence of the suit, which demonstrate that the petitioner has a strong and arguable case on merits. Therefore, he prayed that the condition directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- vide order dated 29.11.2025, be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner be permitted to contest the suit on merits without any pre-condition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

8. This Court finds that the original order imposing the condition of deposit of ₹5,00,000/- as a condition precedent was passed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2025.

The said order dated 03.09.2025 was never challenged by the petitioner in any manner and, therefore, attained finality. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner merely sought clarification of the order dated 03.09.2025. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 27.11.2025, issued a clarification explaining the earlier order. Subsequent to such clarification, the petitioner sought review only of the order dated

27.11.2025 and not of the original order dated 03.09.2025.

9. In these circumstances, it is clear that the foundational order dated 03.09.2025, whereby the condition of deposit of ₹5,00,000/- was imposed, was never subjected to challenge and thus stood concluded and binding upon the petitioner. The clarification order did not alter, modify, or dilute the substantive conditio