[2026:RJ-JP:7398]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18892/2023 M.r. Choudhary S/o Late Shri C.r.choudhary, R/o Yog Sadhna Ashram, Near Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur And B-90, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kumar Nigam S/o Late Shri Radhey Bihari Lal Nigam, R/o G-7,vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Rahar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Sharma, Dy. G.C. with Ms. Pooja Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

16/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 11.04.2022 and 21.09.2023 passed by learned Additional and Sessions Judge, No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur whereby the affidavit in support of the evidence filed by the plaintiff- petitionert has been taken out from the record and placed in Part D of the record/file and application filed by plaintiff-petitioner under Section 151 CPC for extending the time to pay cost has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking extension of time for deposit of costs and permission to lead evidence on his filed affidavit. The said application was rejected vide order dated

21.09.2023.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there has been considerable delay and that the plaintiff is a willful defaulter in failing to deposit the cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order in the proper perspective and that the same does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court finds that vide order dated 21.03.2022, the petitioner–plaintiff was granted an opportunity to lead evidence and file his affidavit, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. On the next date, i.e., 11.04.2022, the affidavits were filed and time was sought to deposit the cost. However, no such time was granted and the affidavits were directed to be kept in Part-D of the file.

6. This Court further finds that the petitioner subsequently filed a specific application under Section 151 CPC on 16.05.2022, praying for extension of time to deposit the cost and seeking permission to lead evidence. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 21.09.2023. 7. This Court is of the view that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner. The respondent–defendant could have been adequately compensated, either by enhancement of costs or by any other appropriate means. However, the manner in which the learned Trial Court refused to take the affidavit on record and directed that it be kept in Part-D of the file cannot be sustained.

8. Accordingly, the present writ is hereby allowed. Consequently, the orders dated 11.04.2022 and 21.09.2023 are hereby quashed and set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to lead evidence on the affidavit already filed and placed in Part-D of the file, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent.

9. In the event the aforesaid cost is not paid on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court, this order shall not come in effect.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/43