[2026:RJ-JP:6104]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889/2026 Pooran Chand S/o Balmukund, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Mohalla Gopalgarh, Bharatpur. ----Petitioner/plaintiff Versus

1. Smt. Vimlesh W/o Man Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mohalla Gopalgarh, Bharatpur.

2. Sampat Singh S/o Bihari Lal, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Mohalla Gopalgarh, Bharatpur.

3. Man Singh S/o Sampat Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Mohalla Gopalgarh, Bharatpur.

----Respondent/defandants For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pooja Gupta For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

10/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur, in Civil Case No.118/2019, whereby, the application dated 31.05.2025 of the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since settlement talks were going on between the parties, therefore, the witnesses whose affidavit were already filed could not be made available for cross-examination.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 16.04.2025, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was filed and before deciding the said application, the learned trial Court merely on account of the fact that even though earlier sufficient opportunities were granted to the witnesses of the plaintiff to be made available for cross-examination, they have failed to make themselves available, closed the evidence of the plaintiff vide order dated 16.04.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the suit involves the right of the plaintiff with regard to a gali which is a valuable right of the plaintiff and therefore, if the plaintiff is not permitted to lead evidence then he will suffer loss of loosing right on the gali.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that there will be no prejudice to the respondent-defendant, if one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead evidence and has also showed willingness to compensate the respondent-

defendant by payment of sufficient costs.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. This Court finds that though sufficient opportunities were given to the plaintiff to complete his evidence, but the plaintiff for one or the other reason had been submitting an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and was delaying the suit proceedings. However, looking to the fact that the affidavit have already been filed and only cross-examination has to be completed, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioner to make available the witnesses of whose affidavits already filed.

8. The learned Trial Court shall fix a date as it deems appropriate and the witnesses shall be made available on the said date and shall be cross-examined by the respondent-defendants subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent- defendants. It is made clear that if the witnesses are not made available on the date fixed by the learned Trial Court for cross-

examination, then no further opportunity shall be granted.

9. If the respondent-defendants are aggrieved by this order, then they are at liberty to file a recalling application.

10. With the above observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

11. All pending application also stands disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J JUBIN /2