[2025:RJ-JD:38273]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16176/2025 Durga Shankar S/o Manroop Ji Joshi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Jaswantgarh Joshiyon Ki Bhagal Badi, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

2. Sub Divisional Officer Gogunda, District Udaipur.

3. Gulabchand S/o Kanniram Ji Joshi, R/o Jaswantgarh Joshiyon Ki Bhagal Badi, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

4. Dalchand S/o Kanniram Ji Joshi, R/o Jaswantgarh Joshiyon Ki Bhagal Badi, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

(Now Deceased)

5. Indralal S/o Kanniram Ji, R/o Jaswantgarh Joshiyon Ki Bhagal Badi, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

6. Reva Shankar S/o Kanniram Ji Joshi, R/o Jaswantgarh Joshiyon Ki Bhagal Badi, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

27/08/2025 By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“it is therefore most respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

i). the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 12/5/2025 passed by the learned Board of Revenue Ajmer in Revision/TA/991/2018/ Udaipur Durga Shankar Vs. Gulabchand & Ors. May kindly be quashed and set aside as if never passed;

ii). That the impugned Judgment dated 14/12/2017 passed bya the learned Sub Divisional Officer Gogunda, District Udaipur in Suit/Case No. 132/2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside as if never passed ;

iii) that the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC may kindly be rejected ;

iv) any other relief, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner;

v). the cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents- plaintiffs have filed a revenue suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner before the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Gogunda, District Udaipur (Revenue Court). Learned counsel submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs at the stage of evidence in the suit pending before the revenue Court has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. for producing certain documents, which came to be allowed by the learned Revenue Court vide order dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure-5). Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure-5), the petitioner-defendant preferred a revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure-6) on the ground that nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the documents sought to be produced by the respondents- plaintiffs are either forged or fabricated documents.

3. Learned counsel submitted that while allowing the applicaton filed on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C., the learned Revenue Court and learned Board of Revenue have failed to take into consideration the fact that permitting the respondents-plaintiffs to place on record certain documents at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence is highly improper as the same would cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings. He further submitted that in the absence of any sufficient cause for the respondents-plaintiffs to produce the documents after about seven year of filing of the revenue suit would definitely adversely impact the right of the petitioner to defend the revenue suit. He submitted that since the order impugned dated 14.12.2017 has been passed without keeping in view the spirit of Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. into consideration, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the pe