[2026:RJ-JD:12632]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5836/2026 Daulat Ram S/o Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Surya Nagar, Gali No. 6, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Asha Rani D/o Kalawati, Resident Of Ward No. 13, Near Maniram Soni Patrakar, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

2. Pushpa Devi W/o Om Prakash, D/o Late Kalawati, Resident Of Chak 3 E Chhoti, Near Sarpanch Shankar Lal Setia, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

3. Mohini Devi D/o Kalawati, Resident Of Ward No. 30, Siddhant Soni House (On Rent), Sangaria, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

4. Santosh D/o Kalawati, Resident Of Ward No. 29, Near Gurudwara, Sangaria, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KR Saharan.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

17/03/2026

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangaria in Civil Original Suit No.04/2024 (“Daulat Ram Vs. Asha Rani and Ors.”), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to appear again in evidence only for the limited purpose of exhibiting certain documents, which had come on record pursuant to an application filed by the respondents under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the documents were brought on record after conclusion of evidence, therefore, could not have been exhibited earlier, however, the learned trial Court erroneously rejected the application by holding that the petitioner had intentionally withheld the documents and such rejection, despite no prejudice being caused to the respondents, is mechanical and deserves to be set aside. 3. Upon perusal of the case file and impugned order, this Court finds that the learned trial Court, vide order dated 25.02.2026, rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to appear again in evidence for exhibiting documents in the suit in question.

4. In the opinion of this Court, denial of the right to formally exhibit material documents in the suit in question would adversely affect the petitioner’s right to fair trial and effective adjudication.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant one and last opportunity to the petitioner to appear again in evidence for the limited purpose of exhibiting the documents in the suit, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents/defendants through counsel.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to appear again in evidence for exhibiting the documents in the suit in question on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court, i.e., 23.03.2026, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents/defendants through counsel. However, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to adjourn the matter at its own discretion, depending upon its work exigency.

7. In case the respondents/defendants refuse to accept the cost and choose to contest the writ petition on merits, they shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the writ petition and upon such application being filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

9. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J

63-/Jitender//-