[2026:RJ-JD:11464]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5206/2026

1. LRs Of Late Shri Nirbhay Singh, S/o Shri Pushpendra Singh Chundawat -

1/1. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Late Shri Nirbhay Singh Chundawat, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 14, Salumber House, Saheli Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.)

1/2. Kunwar Devwrat Singh S/o Late Shri Nirbhay Singh Chundawat, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of 14, Salumber House, Saheli Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Smt. Chelna Devi W/o Amritlal Taya, Resident Of Ashok Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.)

2. LRs Of Nirbhay Singh -

2/1. Smt. Mringagini Kumari D/o Late Shri Nirbhay Singh Chundawat, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of 14, Salumber House, Saheli Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.) Presently Residing At Kundanpur House, Kota (Raj)

2/2. Himmat Kunwar W/o Late Shri Pushpendra Singh Chundawat, Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of 14, Salumber House, Saheli Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.) Presently Residing At Nimaj Fort, Dist. Ajmer (Raj)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jhamak Lal Nagda For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

09/03/2026

1. The petitioners have preferred present writ petition assailing the order dated 04.02.2026 (Annx.1) passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge No.1, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.56/1995, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) & (b) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission to place an order of the Urban Improvement Trust on record and to permit cross-examination of defendant’s witness D.W. 1 Amrit Lal Taya with reference to the said document, has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the course of cross-examination of the defendant’s witness Shri Amrit Lal Taya (DW-1), a question was put to him in relation to an order issued by the Urban Improvement Trust. However, the said question was objected to by the counsel for the defendants.

4. It is submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners preferred an application before the learned trial Court under Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) read with Section 151 CPC, praying that the document dated 01.01.2004 be taken on record and that the petitioners be permitted to put questions to DW-1 with respect to the said document during cross-examination. The said application was earlier rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2018, against which the petitioners preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2714/2018 before this Court.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2023, however, while dismissing the petition, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the learned trial Court. In pursuance of the liberty so granted, the petitioners filed the present application before the learned trial Court.

6. It is contended that the learned trial Court, while rejecting the application, has failed to appreciate that as many as 15 civil suits between the parties are pending and are being tried together after consolidation, and the evidence of DW-1 Shri Amrit Lal Taya is being recorded commonly in the consolidated proceedings. It is further submitted that DW-1 is not a party in all the suits and in several of the consolidated suits, he appears only as a witness. Despite this factual position, the learned trial Court erroneously proceeded on the assumption that DW-1 is a party in all the matters and therefore, declined the prayer of the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has misinterpreted the expression “appropriate application” used by this Court in its order dated 29.08.2023 and has rejected the application without assigning any cogent reason as to why the application filed by the petitioners was not an appropriate application in terms of the liberty