[2026:RJ-JD:3050]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16617/2024

1. Dhannaram S/o Poona Ram, Aged About 70 Years, 1-S-

40, Old Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)

2. Smt. Ganga Devi W/o Dhannaram, Aged About 65 Years, 1-S-40, Old Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)

3. Praveen S/o Dhannaram, Aged About 45 Years, 1-S-40, Old Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Bheemraj S/o Ramrakh, 8, Badshah Ka Jhanda, Pali (Raj.).

2. Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Bhimraj, 8, Badshah Ka Jhanda, Pali (Raj.).

3. Suresh Bhansali S/o Parasmal, Aged About 60 Years, 4, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, Marwar, Pali.

4. Smt. Premlata Bhansali W/o Suresh Bhansali, 4, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, Marwar, Pali.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aidan Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Shrimali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

16/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the validity and propriety of the order dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure- 15) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pali (learned trial Court), whereby the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) read with Section 151 CPC was rejected and the learned Trial Court refused to take the documents proposed by the petitioner-

defendant on record.

2. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the suit in question has been filed in the year 2010 for recovery of amount of Rs.30 lacs so also cancellation of the sale deed executed in relation to part of land situated in Khasra No.786/3 and also seeking decree of possession over plot No.84 situated at Maruti Nagar Scheme, Pali.

3. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the plots in question were subsequently being sold to different individuals by the respondent-plaintiff and the same has given rise to various civil as well as criminal proceedings between the present parties as well as between petitioner-defendant and subsequent purchasers.

4. By way of present application dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure- 14 ) filed under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC, prayer has been made to take on record the documents pertaining to the proceedings initiated by subsequent purchasers under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C.; sale deeds of the plots sold to the subsequent purchasers; documents relating to FIR dated 06.06.2019 registered against the defendant; documents pertaining to criminal case registered by plaintiff bearing Criminal Case No.262/2009 so also the judgment passed by the criminal court in the said case as well as the documents pertaining to Criminal Case No.17/2010 registered by present petitioner against the plaintiff Bhimraj.

5. The said application was objected to by the respondent– plaintiff on the ground that the proposed documents are neither necessary nor relevant for the adjudication of the present suit, which pertains to recovery of the amount allegedly paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, as well as possession of Plot No. 84, which is stated to be in the possession of the defendant. The application was further objected on the ground that the documents pertaining to the purchase of plots by other purchasers (who are not parties to the present suit) as well as the proceedings initiated by them under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C., are wholly irrelevant to present case. It was also contended that the proposed documents relating to inter se criminal proceedings initiated between the parties are neither relevant nor admissible in the present civil proceedings. It is further contended that the application has been filed at a highly belated stage, and just with a view to delay the suit proceedings.

6. Learned trial Court while passing order dated 18.07.2022 has rejected the said application by a detailed order, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

7. Respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition on the ground that a subsequent application dated 22.05.2023 of similar nature being filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC has already