[2026:RJ-JD:11540]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1677/2026 Smt. Bhajan Kaur D/o Shri Ujjagar Singh, W/o Gurpdeep Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Chak 14, O, Presently Residing At Aabad Chak-1-V, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus Lakhveer Singh S/o Shri Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh, R/o Chak 14, O, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

10/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 39/2018, whereby the opportunity granted to the petitioner–

defendant to produce all her witnesses, has been closed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 11216/2024 before this Court challenging the order dated 27.03.2024, whereby the petitioner–

defendant had sought a last opportunity to lead evidence.

4. It is further submitted that this Court, after considering the prayer made by the petitioner, disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.07.2024, granting a final opportunity to the petitioner–defendant to produce all her witnesses on the next date fixed before the trial Court.

5. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.07.2024 reads as under:

“4. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner–defendant to produce all her witnesses on the next date fixed i.e. 14.08.2024. It is made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the defendant to lead her evidence. If all the witnesses are kept present on the next date fixed, the learned trial Court shall proceed to record their evidence and shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter and grant time for cross-examination to the plaintiff in accordance with law.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the aforesaid order, this Court inadvertently mentioned the next date as 14.08.2024, whereas, actual next date fixed before the trial Court was 17.08.2024. Nevertheless, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court on 14.08.2024.

7. It is further submitted that on the said date the petitioner was examined as DW-1. However, one of the material witnesses, namely Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting Expert, could not appear before the trial Court as he had been summoned by another Court through a warrant on the same date.

8. The aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court on 14.08.2024, and a request was made for granting further time to examine the said witness. The matter was thereafter adjourned and the next date was fixed as 31.08.2024.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 31.08.2024, the witness Anil Kumar Gupta (Handwriting Expert) was present before the trial Court. However, owing to the objection raised by the respondent–plaintiff and the pendency of the application filed by him seeking closure of the defendant’s evidence, the said witness could not be examined.

10. It is submitted that the matter thereafter remained pending before the trial Court on several dates, and ultimately the learned trial Court, by the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, closed the opportunity of the petitioner–defendant to lead evidence on the ground that this Court had already granted a final opportunity vide order dated 25.07.2024.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had bona fidely complied with the order passed by this Court and had appeared as a witness on 14.08.2024. The non-appearance of the handwriting expert on that date was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.

12.