[2025:RJ-JD:30620]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7862/2025 Patram S/o Shri Babu Ram @ Babu Lal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 20, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus Sohan Lal S/o Shri Bhuriya @ Bhura Ram, Resident Of Ward No.

3, Jhandawali, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s) : None.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

14/07/2025

1. The grievance of the petitioner (plaintiff) is against the order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh, in Civil Original Case No. 20/2020, whereby the learned trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff (petitioner herein).

2. Brief facts of the case first. The petitioner/plaintiff initially filed a Civil Suit No.20/2022 for Specific Performance of the Sale Agreement dated 16.02.2016 before the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh on 12.03.2020. The said suit was registered on 08.07.2020, and summons were issued to the defendant/respondent. The respondent thereafter filed his Written Statement on 03.11.2020, and issues were framed on 08.09.2021. During the plaintiff’s evidence, a copy of the Sale Agreement dated 16.02.2016 was produced before the learned Trial Court on 14.12.2021, which was subsequently impounded on 30.06.2022 and sent to the Department of Registration, Hanumangarh, for payment of proper stamp duty. The original agreement was forwarded for stamp duty payment on 16.03.2023 and was returned on 07.05.2024. In the meantime, certain third parties, namely Meero, Jaskauri, and Veeru Ram, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 03.07.2024, which was dismissed by order dated 07.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, they filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16525/2024 titled Meero and Anr. v. Patram and Anr., in which this Court issued notices vide order dated 21.11.2024, and the present petitioner also entered appearance. The said writ petition is still pending before this Court. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 23.01.2025, granted a final opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, but subsequently, by the impugned order dated 07.03.2025, the petitioner’s evidence was closed. Hence, this writ petition.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the case file.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 (Annex.P/4), whereby the learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to settled principles of civil law. The order has been passed without considering the genuine and unavoidable circumstances that delayed the petitioner’s evidence and thus deserves to be quashed.

4.1. The petitioner had produced a copy of the Sale Agreement dated 16.02.2016 before the learned Trial Court on 14.12.2021. The said agreement was impounded on 30.06.2022 and sent to the Department of Registration, Hanumangarh, for payment of stamp duty. The original agreement was then sent on 16.03.2023 and returned only on 07.05.2024, causing a substantial delay in the proceedings. These steps were necessary under law and not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner.

4.2. During this period, certain third parties (Meero, Jaskauri, and Veeru Ram) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was dismissed on 07.08.2024. Challenging this, they filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16525/2024 before this Hon’ble Court, which is still pending, and in which the petitioner has also appeared. This parallel litigation had a bearing on the main suit and contributed to the delay.

4.3. Despite these circumstances, the learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 23.01.2025, granted one final opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. However, without appreciating the procedural delays and ongoing writ proceedin