[2026:RJ-JD:9209]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3765/2026 Sajjan Raj S/o Late Shri Rajmal, Aged About 76 Years, R/o 17E/20, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur, At Present Residing At Behind Nasrani Cinema Building, Vyas Ji Ka Nohra, Prabhu Kripa Bhawan, Sardarprua A Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Sushil Agarwal S/o Shri Sohan Lal Agrawal, Resident Of Ganesh Bhawan, Mohanpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Balveer Kumar Jain S/o Shri Nemi Chand Oswal, Resident Of 10^th B Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Madan Singh S/o Shri Radha Kishan Singh Bhati, Resident Of Behind Maheshwari Nyati Nohra, Inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

19/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-defendant No.3 has laid a challenge to the orders dated 07.02.2026 dismissing application under Order XVIII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.14070/2014 whereby, examination-in-chief of the petitioner- defendant No. 3 as D.W. 3 was ordered to be completed and closed and matter has been posted for cross-examination of D.W.1.

petitioner-defendant No. 3 filed an affidavit for examination-in- chief on 27.01.2026 but due to the large record and over 100 documents, some documents remained unexhibited. The petitioner sought permission to file an additional affidavit to exhibit the remaining documents. The trial court, however, refused the prayer treating a simple procedural correction as impermissible, even though all documents were already on record. It is contended that this mechanical refusal contradicts the purpose of procedural law, making the order illegal.

4. It is contended that the plaintiff opposed the petitioner’s application but he himself had previously been allowed to file an additional affidavit to exhibit remaining documents, even years after the original affidavit. The trial court’s refusal to allow the petitioner similar relief shows inconsistent application of law, warranting intervention by this Court.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner could have marked remaining documents without permission, but sought it lawfully. The trial court’s refusal created unnecessary obstacles, contrary to procedural law, justifying quashing of the impugned order. It is submitted that since the petitioner’s examination-in-chief was closed on 09.02.2026, this Court’s indulgence is required not only to permit filing of the additional affidavit and exhibition of remaining documents but also to allow continuation of the chief examination by modifying or quashing the orders dated

07.02.2026 and 09.02.2026.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

7. In the opinion of this Court, given the facts of the case and grounds as pleaded herein as well as in the interest of justice, one effective last opportunity ought to be given to petitioner- defendant No.3 to submit his documents and mark them exhibits before the trial Court.

8. In the premise, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 07.02.2026 and 09.02.2026 are set aside. The defendant No.3 (petitioner herein) is granted one effective last opportunity to submit the documents and mark them exhibit in examination-in-chief, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff. The learned trial court shall permit the petitioner- defendant No.3 to submit the documents and mark them exhibit in examination-in-chief on the next date fixed before it and shall not adjourn the matter at the instance of the defendant No.3. However, the trial Court shall be at liberty to adjourn the matter at its own discretion depending upon its work exigency.

9. In case