[2026:RJ-JP:2715]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 430/2026 Praveen Kumar Son Of Late Shri Ramesh Shankar Agrawal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 107, Dharampura, Bagh Bhatayari, G.T.

Road, Ghaziabad (U.p.)

----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus

1. Kishor Singh Son Of Shri Girvar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Badgurjaron Ki Dhani, Tan Biharipur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, P.s. Patan District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Girvar Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Badgurjaron Ki Dhani, Tan Biharipur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, P.s. Patan District Sikar (Raj.)

----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijendra Singh Kachhawa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Anushree Agarwal, Ms. Sampati Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

21/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, whereby the application termed as fourth application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking the documents on record has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 35 documents, most of them were judgments and orders passed by the Court, and the rest pertained to documents from the criminal proceedings. He submits that the learned trial Court wrongly rejected his application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and argues that the application was filed after the plaintiff’s evidence were closed and the matter was posted for the evidence of the respondents-defendants. The application was vague and it neither specified the relevance of the documents nor did it explain why the other documents were relevant to the decision of the suit. He further submits that the plaintiff-petitioner had previously filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, which was allowed on 15.07.2025. Therefore, he contends that the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC had been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.

4. Heard and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.

5. This Court finds that the application preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner is vague. The application does not specify the relevance of the documents nor does it provide any explanation as to why these documents were not placed on record along with the plaint, or why they were not listed in the list of documents filed at the time of the plaint.

6. However, the Court finds that despite these deficiencies, the learned trial Court permitted the plaintiff to refer to the order- sheets and orders passed by the Courts, of which judicial notice can be taken under Section 52 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

7. This Court thus finds no error so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/05